Nobody said zero. Strawman.

I. Plausibility of big picture and motive 1-4
II. Rules of Evidence 5-14
III. General nature of historical evidence 15
IV. Evidence of fraud 16 – 19
V. Politicized nature of subject 20-24

Thus, items under V for example are not meant to be direct evidence against the holocaust, but rather evidence for the fact that we have a political milieu in which the establishment historians, otherwise innocent, could be gulled into an incorrect view. That is, it is one thing to poke holes in the train of evidence. The common man on the jury will still wonder how, if that is so, so many smart people could be convinced. Section V indicates how that is indeed possible. Now how and why it is that the “liberators” have been brow-beaten into doing penance is the subject for another discussion.

It could be helpful for the reader to re-read the first and last paragraph of the post so as not to forget the main point.

I have been reviewing this friendly controversy between us. Blog posts in general should not be extremely long, so I will deal only with a few things in this item – others, as I get to them in the future. [Readers who anxiously await the logical analysis of the American pogrom against the pygmies will, unfortunately, have to wait some more.] I am not sure there will be space to cover every point on the blog – perhaps T and I should talk over some of this in a personal discussion, which we could call our “Partei-Tag”.

First, the accusation of circularity: That I assume that such and such, cite the Himmler Posen speech, and take that as further proof of such and such. Well, if you examine the formal structure of my remarks which occurred in the 2/6 post, everyone should see that I assumed no such thing as is attributed to me. I assumed no number in that post and no particular means of doing away with people. Rather, I cited the Posen speech and raised the question – isn’t Himmler here proudly taking credit for the deed? To be more prolix about it here: taking credit for the work then in progress toward “the extermination of the Jewish people”, as entailed by the party program – as involving no exceptions for good Jews, unlike the generality of German public opinion would have favored – as involving the SS men seeing great quantities of corpses as the fruit of their work and remaining “decent people” nevertheless? If you have a reasonable interpretation of such remarks as involving zero executions and only evacuations, by all means bring it on.

2. You ask: are you saying, “T, you have brought 24 considerations, each of which has many lines of evidence behind it, but all that is refuted by these single statements by Eichmann and Himmler respectively.”

No I am not saying that, and that is one reason I warned you from the beginning I was going somewhat OT with, I think, your permission. Had I been totally on topic, I should have begun writing a series of posts (First, critiquing your arguments 1 and 2 ; Second, critiquing your arguments 3 and 4 ; and so on.) But, you seem to want to know what I think of your list of 24 in a brief Cliffs Notes sort of way: so here goes. An argument about matters of fact can fail through (1) being logically invalid, or (2) involving false premises. I think a small minority of your arguments have type (1), logical invalidity problems. An example of one such would be #23, the prevalence of holocaust memorials in American cities. Such memorials are no proof or disproof concerning who died or how many of them. Again to speak “in character” for one moment, the consistent National Socialist would regard these memorials in many American cities as proof that the supposed victors have in fact been vanquished. My dissent from the majority of your arguments, which do not have logical invalidity problems, is merely that you accept certain premises to reason from that I do not.

3. I will conclude this post by examining the note that “torture, threat of torture, and even mutilation … was applied to prisoners…” Assuming for the sake of argument this to be so as much as you like, and this is does not render impossible rational belief in historical accounts in general. These 3 things were involved in the English investigation of the Gunpowder Plot of 1605 – but nobody will maintain it is unreasonable to believe that event happened. Again, these 3 things were involved in the German investigation of the 7/20/1944 Plot against Hitler – but nobody will maintain it is unreasonable to believe that event happened also.

Ronin, I give for your perusal, this article:
http://johndenugent.com/jdn/hitlers-real-views-on-race/

I think it (and other articles like it) are a necessary first step in DE-demonizing a man who sought to keep jewish Bolshevism out of Europe. Remember, the Jewish Bolsheviks ANNIHILATED over 100 million via their antichrist ideology; cf. Black Book on Communism. hitler was a bad man, but for RELIGIOUS reasons, and not necessarily POLITICAL reasons. Leaning a bit toward the level of praise given (even in a backhand compliment) to Mussolini, (“He made the trains run on time in Italy”) I think like many others, we can say that Hitler did much good for Germany. But to even THINK that today, is to indulge in wanting to take away the “Bogeyman” status the Deicides have awarded him. There are benumbed minds that can’t even go THAT far… who also think Lincoln, (For instance) was a good and godly man. (NOT!)

I, for one, came to a realization that my ancestors from Germany (the ‘Fatherland’) could not have done what they did as the sub-human ‘Schweinhund’ caricatures of Hogan’s Heroes, UNLESS THEY WERE PROVOKED. And then, in issues of National Interest, corporate infrastructure, and the racial existence of one’s people, ALL BETS ARE OFF. Which brings us to the USA at the present moment. We are very close to fueling a mass movement that would enact the divine retribution against the OPPOSING mentality that has ruled us for the last sixty years…. since Hitler LOST the war, to be specific. WHo WON in WWII? CLearly Hitler lost… but which ETHNIC GROUP won? THEY are the ones who ‘write the history.’ We all learned that. But for WHAT REASON? Therein lies our necessary work of digging and research.

And, as we all know ‘Arbeit macht Frei’ (or, in another time and in another place, ‘The Truth shall set you free’).

Yes, there is a strain of Nietzschean nihilism in the Germanic psyche, because, (yes) higher criticism arose in the same VOLK. And the two are inextricably linked. Deny God and all hell is possible. But the ideology of Hate par excellence is not (no, it’s NOT) that of the NatSocs, but that of the Christ-killers, and has been for 2000 years.

I used to work as a ’shabbas goy’ in a synagogue during my college years. I saw upfront for eight years of Friday evenings, and Saturday mornings: the ethnic racial supremacist attitudes of the ‘poor, downtrodden jews;’ I heard their Rabbis talk about their RACE and their EXCLUSIONARY PLACE IN THE UNIVERSE, and watched how they literally VIEW us as ’sub-human.’ Racial supremacist? Hateful? Irrational? Screeching harpies bent on worldwide destruction? Please. The Nazis couldn’t hold a candle to the Khazars.

Reading “Judaism’s strange religion’ by Michael Hoffman was the KEY that opened my eyes; that, and ‘The Thirteenth Tribe’ by Koestler. That, and I have always been an iconoclast..I can’t help it, it’s my Celtic distrust of those in power. Remember Cromwell….?

Or, as I think John Frame would state it, that very narrow circular reasoning is in play. Revisionist seem to be more apt to take in all the evidence where upholders of the official story seem not to.

I’m still not sure what the form of your argument is. Perhaps if you put a summary into brief syllogistic form it would help. Let me take a stab at several possibilities.

1. “The nazis loathed and hated the effect of judaism on their aryan culture, so it only stands to reason that they would have killed as many as possible once war broke out.”

But many Europeans throughout history have loathed and hated judaism and its effects, but it does not always, perhaps never did lead to genocidal tendencies. So this can’t function as an a priori.

Yes one can gain a glimmer of understanding of how this would become a desire, when one starts to understand the extent of jewish subversion of goyish cultures, including our own — the racketeering, manipulation, pornography, debased entertainment, “jewing down” contracts, unrelenting special pleading, etc. But even when such “just anger” is not hedged by the law of God, see #3 in the original post.

2. “Himmler made a speech in which he said, ‘This is a page of glory in our history’ and the Führer, in his final political testament, is proud of how much was accomplished. Therefore, it must be that the nazis killed 6 million jews, mostly in gas chambers set up for that purpose.”

Actually this does not follow.

There was much for the nazi leadership to have been proud of besides eliminating the jew from Germany (and actually they did not succeed in doing even that, but that’s another story).

I have not studied the Himmler speech yet, though I have scanned some analyses of it. From my minimal knowledge of it, it could hardly serve to overcome the difficulties I have outlined in this post. Same with Hitler’s testament. Eichmann’s case is even more problematic, even on the face of it. I will do a full post on him one of these days. More on the hermeneutical problem below.

3. “Ribbentrop while in captivity wrote a passage consistent with my interpretation of Hitler’s testament, therefore the nazis killed six million jews in gas chambers.”

Again, this hardly follows. More importantly in this case, I completely discount any testimony given while in Allied captivity now that I know about the torture, threat of torture, and even mutilation that was applied to prisoners. Nuremburg was a show trial. The evidence for the holocaust is going to have to come from elsewhere.

4. “Statements from Nazi leaders consistent with the revisionist view of things cannot be found; therefore, the nazis killed six million jews in gas chambers.”

First, I’m not sure what the “revisionist view of things” is. For me, it is like the 9-11: we can be quite sure that the “official story” is false at least in some glaring respects. To conclude that does not require proposing an entire “view of things.” That should be the job for honest historians, if there are any left.

But, second, of course there are lots of statements consistent with the non-genodical deportation of jews, including most of Eichmann’s. Moreover, the narrative as a whole makes better sense in view of deportation.

Third, this way of putting it is prejudicial. Try this thought experiment. Let’s call the “revision view” the denial of the thesis, “The US set out to exterminate all pygmies during WW2.” You then come back with the challenge, “show me one statement from an American official that is in basic accord with the revisionist view. Oh, you can’t? Then we should stick with the view that the US was out to exterminate all pygmies during WW2.”

Statements about refraining from exterminating pygmies are admittedly hard to find amongst American diplomats and leaders of the time.

Change the thought experiment a bit. Suppose there had been a lot of “antipygmites” and in fact they had prevailed to the extent of setting up a program to deport all pygmies. This would not indicate that, unless we can find explicit denials from their mouths at the time, they should be accused of killing all the pygmies. This is crazy.

===================

My point is not to poo-poo any evidence you might bring. On the contrary, bring it on. Just now, I’m trying to determine first how that evidence is functioning for your thesis. That is, are you saying, “T, you have brought 24 considerations, each of which has many lines of evidence behind it, but all that is refuted by these single statements by Eichmann and Himmler respectively.” Somehow I don’t think that’s what you saying, but perhaps you could clarify.

Or are you simply saying, “make sure you have also considered such-and-such evidence before you commit to holocaust denial.”

The biggest problem I see in the speech evidence is circular reasoning:
1. The “holocaust” (killing six million jews in gas chambers) is true, it took place.
2. Therefore, phrases like “final solution” must refer to that.
3. Thus, further evidence that (1) is true is found in statements in speeches such as “final solution.”

The subtle way that circular reasoning can creep in to one’s thinking should be pondered carefully.

T, You properly discern a defect in my previous post in that I tied the matter, to some extent, to what post WW2 neo-nazis think. This is not needed. What a later generation of partisans think, is no proof or disproof of what happened then.

So, to focus just on the question of the Final Solution of the Jewish Question in Europe:

Say what you will about the implausibilities of the traditional view of what happened, also a great deal of implausibility attaches to the revisionist view. On this view of things, Hitler rose to power, and when the war began mighty German armies conquered large swathes of land in the East for Lebensraum. Off they went to war, under orders to regard the Jews as their worst enemies. And most of them were sincerely convinced that the Jews were their worst enemies. And then what happened? Oh, very little, and that due to wartime conditions in general, not due to any murderous plans. Next thing you know, we will be asked to believe that the camps were actually large facilities for hosting Sunday School picnics.

What the Nazi leadership at that time said about the matter should be weighed carefully, as they knew what was happening. I find little indication that the real Nazis then had much use for the alternate/revisionist view of what they accomplished. If not trying to beat the rap, the unrepentant ones in general were quite proud of what they did. In addition to the quotes in my prior email I should mention this of Eichmann, spoken in 1945 (thus, long before the Israelis ever got him): “he would leap laughing to his grave because the feeling that he had five million people on his conscience would give him extraordinary satisfaction”. (This you can find at page 236 of the book I will cite below.)

The Posen speech of Himmler was far from unimportant. Himmler presented this message to the highest officials of the SS as a major policy statement (see “Himmler” by Willi Frischauer, which devotes the better part of a chapter to this speech (Chapter XVII)). As to the “treatment of dissidents”, interestingly enough Himmler brings up that very point in the speech, discussing the 1934 Night of the Long Knives. Perhaps it was not “necessary” for the National Socialists to treat dissidents so harshly – but Himmler, in this speech, certainly speaks as if he thought it necessary. I suspect he knew what his political creed required as well as anyone else.

Mein Kampf, written so long before the beginning of the National Socialist state, does not by itself prove what happened later. One should mention it at all, as I did, only as coneptually linked to the Political Testament retrospective view of the period. And the most natural reading of the Testament is in harmony with the traditionalist account. And this is not just my opinion. Ribbentrop in captivity after the war wrote memoirs, before he was executed, in which occurs a passage in which he interprets the Testament pretty much as I would.

How about this as a thought experiment. I have already brought up some citations which I think significant. Can statements be found by the Nazi leaders that are in basic accord with the revisionist view of things – said back then, close in time to the events in question?

There are two questions that one can answer independently from each other:

1. Who constitutes a nation? One can favor the idea that a nation should be built on a (a) tribal basis, or (b) an imperial or propositional basis.

2. How should the economics of a nation be organized? One can favor a (a) libertarian or (b) mixed or collectivist economic model.

As I see it these are quite independent axes. Then there are four possible combinations of yes/no that one could hold. Historically we can approximate each combination for example thusly:

1a/2a (tribal libertarian)  19th century British Liberalism
1a/2b (tribal mixed/collectivist) National Socialism
1b/2a (imperial libertarian) Lincolnism
1b/2b (imperial mixed/collectivist) Modern America/ old USSR

I mention these four possibilities because libertarians typically want to reduce everything to the second question only. Their dog fight would be, roughly speaking, between the 19th century Liberals and Lincolnites. On the other hand, the battle of WW2 was between two systems, each of which were mixed/collectivist (thus being lumped together as one in the libertarian demonology) but based on two contrary notions of solidarity, and exemplified in the pure types of National Socialism (NS) and Communism (USSR).

In each of those cases, the question arose “what to do with dissidents?” Both NS and Communists were willing to treat dissidents roughly. However, it is debatable whether either would have needed to have done so.

Separately overlaid over these axes is the jewish question. The jewish question is as old as Europe, not something unique to NS. There could be many ways to answer the jewish question within the framework of any of the four positions outlined above, including NS.

The pros and cons of NS and Communism may some day be discussable by adults without all the baggage of atrocities, persecutions, and so forth NECESSARILY being brought up, UNLESS it could be shown that such things follow necessarily from the parameters I have defined. This seems dubious to me.

Finally, we have the allegation that the NS murdered 11 million people, including 6 million jews, utilizing, chiefly, homicidal gas chambers. It is this specific claim that it was the burden of my post to examine. I don’t think an oblique statement made by Himmler in some obscure speech somewhere, or some obtuse statement in Mein Kampf twenty years earlier, lends much weight of evidence to that question.