Author Topic: CODOH Flyer on the Holohoax  (Read 494 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline rum

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 752
  • Reputation: +370/-261
  • Gender: Male
CODOH Flyer on the Holohoax
« on: November 27, 2018, 03:45:45 AM »
  • Thanks!2
  • No Thanks!0
  • The Committee for Open Debate on the Holocaust recently released a flyer containing basic facts about the Holohoax which are suppressed by the Jewish establishment.

    Full Text of Flyer:

    The Case for Open Debate


    Is asking questions a crime? If you develop doubts about the
    Holocaust, isn’t the only way to get rid of these doubts by asking
    questions? A lot of individuals and groups are enraged by those
    who ask critical questions about the Holocaust.

    Every other historical issue is debated as a matter of course,
    but influential pressure groups have made the Holocaust story an
    exception. Anyone should be encouraged to investigate critically
    the Holocaust narrative in the same way they are encouraged to
    investigate every other historical event. This is not a radical point
    of view. It is just plain reason.


    National Socialists saw Jews as being an influential force behind
    international communism and finance. During World War II, Jews
    were considered to be enemies of the German State and a po-
    tential danger to its war efforts, much like the Germans, Italians,
    and Japanese were viewed in the U.S. Consequently, Jews were
    stripped of their rights, forced to live in ghettos, conscripted for
    labor, deprived of their property, deported, and otherwise mis-
    treated. Many tragically perished.

    In contrast to establishment historians, revisionists claim that
    the German State had NO policy to exterminate the Jewish people
    (or anyone else) in homicidal gas chambers or by killing them
    through abuse or neglect. Revisionists also maintain that the fig-
    ure of six million Jewish deaths is an irresponsible exaggeration,
    and that no execution gas chambers existed in any camp in Europe
    which was under German control. Fumigation gas chambers, both
    stationary and mobile, did exist to delouse clothing and equip-
    ment in order to prevent disease at POW, labor, and concentra-
    tion camps and at the fighting front. It is highly likely that it was
    from this lifesaving procedure that the myth of extermination gas
    chambers emerged.

    Revisionists generally hold that the Allied governments, and
    in particular the Soviets, decided to carry their wartime “black
    propaganda” of German monstrosities over into the postwar pe-
    riod. This was done for essentially three reasons. 1. The Allies felt
    it necessary to continue to justify the great sacrifices that were
    made in fighting two world wars. 2. The Allies wanted to divert
    attention from their own crimes against humanity. Soviet atroci-
    ties caused the death of millions in eastern and central Europe.
    American and British saturation bombings causing over a million
    civilians to be burned alive. 3. The Allies needed justification for
    their postwar dismantling of German industry, a policy of starva-
    tion causing the deaths of millions of Germans, and the annexa-
    tion of large parts of Germany into Poland and the USSR (20% of
    the entire German territory). Twelve million Germans were bru-
    tally expelled. More than two millions perished.

    Today, the Holocaust story, which is perceived as a crime of
    a right-wing regime, plays an important role for leftist-interna-
    tionalist groups, for Zionist organizations, and for groups within
    Jewish communities. It is the leaders of these political and propa-
    ganda organizations who continue to work to sustain the orthodox
    Holocaust narrative and the myth of German monstrosity.

    For those who believe that the Nuremberg Trials revealed the
    truth about German war crimes, it is a terrible shock to discover
    that then Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court Harlan Fiske
    Stone described the Nuremberg court as “a high-grade lynching
    party for Germans.”

    The Photographs

    We’ve all seen “The Photographs,” especially the awful scenes at
    Dachau, Buchenwald, and Bergen-Belsen camps. But even main-
    stream historians admit that there was no German policy at any
    of those camps to kill the internees. In the last months of the war,
    while Soviet armies were invading Germany from the east, British
    and U.S. bombers were destroying every major city in Germany
    with saturation bombing. Transportation, the food distribution
    system, medical, and sanitation services all broke down. That was
    the purpose of these air raids, which was the most barbaric form
    of warfare in Europe since the Mongol invasion.

    Millions of refugees fleeing the Soviet armies were pouring
    into central and western Germany. As a result of the ongoing war,
    of starvation, and epidemics, millions of civilians were dying all
    over Germany. The camps were not exempted from this tragedy.
    By early 1945, these inmates suffered from malnutrition and epi-
    demics like typhus and cholera, to which many succumbed. When
    the press entered the camps with British and U.S. soldiers, they
    found the results of that. They took “The Photographs.”
    Still, at camps such as Buchenwald, Dachau, and Bergen-
    Belsen tens of thousands of relatively healthy internees were lib-
    erated. They were there in the camps when “The Photographs”
    were taken.


    In response to challenges to show documents proving the Jewish
    genocide, only a handful of documents are produced, the authen-
    ticity or interpretation of which is highly questionable. If pressed
    for clear evidence, it is claimed that the Germans destroyed the
    documents to hide their evil deeds, or the absurd claim is made
    that the Germans used code language, whispered verbal orders, or
    conveyed orders through a meeting of minds.

    All available evidence indicates that there was no order for a
    mass murder of Jews, no plan, no budget, no weapon—that is, no gas
    chamber—and no victim—that is, not a single autopsied body has
    been shown to have been gassed.

    Eyewitness Testimony

    During medieval witch trials, many witnesses told about broom-
    riding witches and the devil. Since most statements were made in-
    dependently and without pressure, this was taken as evidence that
    the stories must be true; material evidence was never produced.
    “Common knowledge” and social pressure were the basis of these
    tales, not the truth.

    Today we again face “common knowledge” produced by 60
    years of one-sided mass-media propaganda and massive social and
    legal pressure. To support their theories, anti-revisionists depend al-
    most exclusively on “eyewitness” testimony produced in this poi-
    soned atmosphere.

    During the war-crimes trials many “eyewitnesses” testifi ed that
    Germans made soap out of human fat. For decades, highly respected
    scholars sanctioned these stories. But in 1990, Yehuda Bauer, direc-
    tor of Holocaust studies at Hebrew University, Tel Aviv, admitted:
    “The Nazis never made soap from Jews...”

    Bruno Baum, a former communist inmate in Auschwitz, was al-
    lowed to brag in summer 1945 in a Soviet newspaper: “The whole
    propaganda which started about Auschwitz abroad was initiated by
    us [German communist inmates] with the help of our Polish com-
    rades.” During several post-war trials it emerged that the testimonies
    of witnesses from eastern Europe had been orchestrated by commu-
    nist authorities.

    The only two witnesses who were ever cross-examined had to
    admit in 1985 that their accounts were not true: Arnold Friedman
    confessed to never having experienced what he had claimed, and
    Rudolf Vrba, one of the most famous Auschwitz witnesses, admitted
    to having used poetic license to “embellish” his statements. Once
    asked by a fellow survivor if all his claims were true, Vrba replied:
    “I do not know. I was just an actor and I recited my text.”
    During and after the war there were “eyewitnesses” to mass gas-
    sings at Buchenwald, Bergen-Belsen, Dachau, and other camps in
    Germany proper. Today, virtually all recognized scholars dismiss
    this testimony as false.

    Establishment historians, however, still claim that mass gassings
    happened at several camps in Poland. But the evidence for this is
    of the same nature as that falsely claiming mass gassings in other
    camps in Germany.

    With regard to confessions by Germans at war-crimes trials, it
    is now well documented that many of the earlier testimonies were
    obtained through coercion, intimidation, and even physical torture,
    just like during the medieval witch trials.


    In 1990, the Auschwitz State Museum revised the old propaganda
    claim of four million murdered humans down to one million—based
    not upon facts, but upon estimates! In 1994, a French scholar re-
    duced this figure further down to less than 700,000, and in 2002,
    another mainstream Holocaust scholar reduced the Auschwitz death
    toll to 500,000—again not based on facts, but on “estimates.”
    The Auschwitz Museum has put on display piles of hair, boots,
    and eyeglasses, etc., but there is neither evidence for the origin of
    these items nor for the fate of their former owners. While such dis-
    plays are effective propaganda, they are worthless as historical

    In a videotaped interview, the Auschwitz Museum authorities
    admitted that the gas chamber shown to tourists is a “reconstruc-
    tion,” again not based on facts, but only on eyewitness claims,
    which contradict wartime documents. The museum guides, how-
    ever, have told visitors for decades that all that they see is genu-

    Whereas some mainstream scholars claim that the Auschwitz
    crematories, whose morgues supposedly served as gas chambers,
    were the “absolute center” in the “geography of atrocities,” other
    mainstream scholars claim that the mass murder did not take place
    in those crematories, but elsewhere. Revisionists, however, want
    certainty, not speculations and estimates.


    When the Soviets captured the Majdanek Camp near Lublin,
    Poland, in 1944, they claimed that 2 million inmates were killed
    there in seven gas chambers. Shortly after the war, Polish re-
    searchers reduced the death toll to some 360,000. After the col-
    lapse of the Soviet Union, that number went down to 235,000,
    and in 2005, the Majdanek Museum reduced it further to 78,000,
    with only a few of them being victims of now merely two gas
    chambers. So what is with the other 1,922,000 victims and with
    the other five gas chambers? Were they errors or lies? And why
    should anyone believe what they tell us now? If they were so ter-
    ribly wrong here, where else?

    Jewish Population Losses during World War II

    Two monographs were written on the question of Jewish losses
    during World War II. The first concluded that some 300,000 per-
    ished. The second claimed that some six million died. Whereas
    the first book takes into consideration demographic changes of the
    Jewish population in all countries, the second book compiles its
    figures by simply subtracting the number of Jews alive in Europe
    a few years after the war from those alive in Europe several years
    before the war. It ignores that the Jewish population in America,
    Israel, and other countries outside of Europe had increased by
    almost six million in this period of time, as a result of a new
    Exodus. Thus, those who had left Europe were simply declared
    to be Holocaust victims.

    The Hidden Genocide

    It is true that during WWII the world responded with indifference
    to what happened to the Jews. But it is also certain that if there had
    been “killing factories” in Poland murdering millions of civilians,
    then the Red Cross, the pope, humanitarian agencies, the Allied
    governments, neutral governments, and prominent figures such as
    Roosevelt, de Gaulle, Truman, Churchill, Eisenhower, and many
    others would have known about it and would have often and un-
    ambiguously mentioned it, and condemned it. They did not! Not
    even in their autobiographies and war memoirs!

    Examples of Propaganda

    Starting in the late 1800s, and climaxing during and after the
    First(!) World War, mainly American Jewish organizations were
    claiming that six million Jews(!) would suffer terribly in Eastern
    Europe, even stating they were being exterminated in a holocaust.
    With such propaganda, millions of dollars were raised in the U.S.,
    which at the end were mainly used to support the Soviet revolu-
    tion in Russia.

    On 22 March 1916, that is during the First World War, the
    British newspaper The Daily Telegraph published an article false-
    ly claiming that the Germans had murdered 700,000 Serbs in gas
    chambers. On 25 May 1942, that is during the Second World War,
    the same newspaper reported that the Germans had murdered
    700,000 Jews in Poland in gas chambers. In 1944, the British
    Government asked the British media and churches to help spread
    anti-German propaganda, which it had been putting out already
    for a while, in order to distract from the atrocities it expected to
    be committed by the Soviets as soon as they invaded Germany. In
    its circular, the British government expressed its regret that, after
    the exposure of WWI propaganda lies, greater efforts would be
    necessary to make people believe it.


    Many people are bewildered when they first hear Holocaust
    revisionist arguments. The arguments appear to make sense, but
    “How is it possible?” After all, the whole world believes the or-
    thodox Holocaust narrative. It’s just not plausible that the truth
    could have been suppressed for so many decades.

    To understand how it could have happened, one needs only
    to reflect on the intellectual and political dogmas of medieval
    Europe, of National Socialist Germany, or of the Communist-bloc
    countries. In these societies, the great majority of scholars were
    caught up in the existing political culture. Committed to a pre-
    vailing ideology, these scholars and intellectuals felt it was their
    right and duty to protect that ideology. They did so by oppressing
    “evil” dissidents who expressed “offensive” or “dangerous” ideas.
    In those societies, scholars became the “Thought Police.”

    In our own society, in the debate over the question of political
    correctness, there are those who deliberately attempt to trivialize
    the issues. They claim that there is no real problem with freedom
    of speech in our society, and that all that is involved with politi-
    cal correctness are a few rules which allegedly protect minorities
    from those who would otherwise hurt their feelings. There is, of
    course, a more serious aspect to the problem. In American society
    today, there is a wide range of ideas and viewpoints which the
    mass media will not allow to be discussed openly. Even obvious
    facts and realities, when they are politically unacceptable, are de-
    nied and suppressed. One can learn much about the psychology
    and methods of the Thought Police by watching how they react
    when just one of their taboos is broken, and Holocaust revision-
    ism is given a public forum.

    First they express outrage that such “offensive” and “danger-
    ous” ideas were allowed to be expressed publicly. They avoid
    answering or debating these ideas, claiming that to do so would
    give the revisionists a forum and legitimacy. Then they make
    vicious personal attacks against the revisionist heretics, calling
    them political names such as “hater” or “denier,” even suggesting
    that they are potential mass murderers. They publicly accuse the
    revisionists of lying, but they don’t allow these dissidents to face
    their accusers so that they can answer this slander.

    Revisionists are frequently accused of being hate-filled peo-
    ple who are promoting a doctrine of hatred. But revisionism is a
    scholarly process, not a doctrine or an ideology. If the Holocaust pro-
    moters really want to expose hatred, they should take a second look
    at their own doctrines, and a long look at themselves in the mirror.
    Anyone who invites a revisionist to speak publicly is himself at-
    tacked for being insensitive. When revisionists do speak publicly,
    they are regularly shouted down and threatened. Libraries and book-
    stores such as Amazon face threats and intimidation when they offer
    Holocaust revisionist materials. All this goes on while the majority
    of library, media, college, and university administrators stand silently
    by, allowing political activists to determine what can be said in the
    media and read in libraries.

    Next, the Thought Police set out to destroy the transgressor pro-
    fessionally and financially by “getting” him at his job or concocting
    a lawsuit against him. It is sometimes often deceptively claimed that
    revisionist scholarship has been proven false during a trial, though
    courts of law can never decide any scholarly debates; they can only
    impose dogmas.

    Finally, the Thought Police will inevitably “straighten out” that
    segment of academia or the media that allowed the revisionists a fo-
    rum in the first place.

    Some administrators in academia hold that university administra-
    tions should take action to rid the campus of ideas, which are disrup-
    tive. This is an open invitation to tyranny. It means that any militant
    group with “troops at the ready” can rid the campus of ideas it op-
    poses. Timorous administrators might find it much easier and safer
    to rid the campus of controversial ideas than to face down a group of
    screaming militants. But it is the duty of university administrators to
    insure that our universities remain a free marketplace of ideas. When
    ideas cause disruptions, it is the disrupters who must be subdued, not
    the ideas.


    The influence of Holocaust revisionism is growing steadily both here
    and abroad. In the United States, revisionism was launched in earnest
    in 1976 with the publication of the book The Hoax of the Twentieth
    Century by Prof. Dr. Arthur R. Butz. It is now presented in many
    university-style studies of serious scholarship. Those who take up
    the revisionist cause represent a wide spectrum of political and philo-
    sophical positions. They are certainly not the scoundrels, liars, and
    demons the anti-revisionists try to make them out to be. The fact
    is, there are no demons in the real world. People are at their worst
    when they begin to see their opponents as an embodiment of evil,
    and then begin to demonize them. Such people are quite prepared to
    harm their opponents. The logic of their argument is that you can do
    anything you want to a demon. We should not allow such a logic to

    Those wishing to verify the truthfulness of the statements made
    here are invited to visit our website www.HolocaustHandbooks.
    com where you can watch thoroughly researched documentaries and
    download free of charge most of our 40 meticulously documented
    studies on various aspects of the Holocaust.

    Offline songbird

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3484
    • Reputation: +1282/-97
    • Gender: Female
    Re: CODOH Flyer on the Holohoax
    « Reply #1 on: November 27, 2018, 05:42:30 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • Christ's death on the Cross, was the only Holocaust, Holy Sacrifice.  I can see murder of Catholics, many and do we go around calling ourselves holocaust, no.  Jews may see themselves as the chosen people, but they never chose God.  They remain in a sorrowful state of lies that they   swallow.  Conversion has always  been their need.  It is so sad that they continue to be lost.


    Sitemap 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16