Archeological Investigations of Treblinka

[T.F. Scheb]

Originally Posted by Roberto Muehlenkamp

I didn't know murder cases are solved on the basis of a "best single piece of forensic proof" rather than all physical and/or documentary and/or eyewitness evidence that can be obtained.

I asked for your "best single piece of forensic proof."

One piece of forensic proof is better than a whole bushel basket of liewitness testimony. Every investigator, litigator and court knows that, why don't you?

Thanks to fearless scientific investigators, like Mr. Gerdes, the truth is starting to bubble to the surface. Here's and article that may interest you.

BTW, what is YOUR best single piece of forensic proof?

----------------------------------
New York Times
July 2, 2009
Rethinking the Holocaust

Today’s idea: The Holocaust needs a major reassessment, a historian argues, because the symbolic power of Auschwitz obscures the Nazis’ mass shootings and other atrocities in the East early in the war.


Associated Press

Much more to it than Auschwitz. History | Auschwitz and its gas chambers distort our vision of the Holocaust, Timothy Snyder of Yale says in a lecture adapted for the New York Review of Books. His reasoning: Since it was a “labor camp as well as a death factory” largely for West European Jews later in the war, Auschwitz’s liberation at war’s end yielded numerous survivors free to recount their experiences. Not so Holocaust victims caught behind the Iron Curtain.

Most of the killing of Jews had been carried out much earlier, Snyder says. “An adequate vision of the Holocaust would place Operation Reinhardt, the murder of the Polish Jews in 1942, at the center of its history,” he says, including the horrors of the death camps Treblinka, Sobibor and Be zec — the latter of which, “though the third most important killing site of the Holocaust, after Auschwitz and Treblinka, is hardly known.”

Next in importance are the Nazis’ mass shootings in the Soviet Union, eastern Poland and the Baltics in 1941-42, often with local assistance (”All in all, as many if not more Jews were killed by bullets as by gas …”). This “Shoah by bullets” killed a million Jews in 1941 alone, Snyder says, “the equivalent of the total number of Jews killed at Auschwitz during the entire war.”

“In shorthand, then, the Holocaust was, in order: Operation Reinhardt, Shoah by bullets, Auschwitz,” Snyder says, “or Poland, the Soviet Union, the rest.”

Yet, he adds, even this accounting omits the atrocities of “the state that Hitler was chiefly concerned to destroy, the other state that killed Europeans en masse in the middle of the century: the Soviet Union.” [New York Review of Books]

--------------------------

[Dan Allan]

So now the jews realize that the Auschwitz lie is disintegrating, but instead of admitting they were wrong, they're just gonna make up a new, even bigger lie.

[T.F. Scheb]

Originally Posted by Dan Allan

So now the jews realize that the Auschwitz lie is disintegrating, but instead of admitting they were wrong, they're just gonna make up a new, even bigger lie.

Yup. 'What a tangled web they weave . . .'

They need to overcome this oft repeated falsehood:

"Four million Jews -- about two-thirds of the six million who
perished in Europe at the hands of the Nazis -- were murdered at
Oswiecim and its subsidiary camps."

[T.F. Scheb]

We're waiting to hear from you, Muley.

[T.F. Scheb]

Are you doing your homework, Muley?
Are you dropping the dogma and siding with Copernicus?
Are you taking the NAFCASH Challenge?

[Roberto Muehlenkamp]

Originally Posted by T.F. Scheb

I asked for your "best single piece of forensic proof."

As silly a question as I can think of.

Originally Posted by tfs

One piece of forensic proof is better than a whole bushel basket of liewitness testimony. Every investigator, litigator and court knows that, why don't you?

Why is whatever you call forensic proof "better" than eyewitness testimony? Because you say so? If you could show me rules and standards of evidence establishing the superiority of physical evidence over other categories of evidence instead, that would be more convincing.

And it's not like there's a lack of physical evidence to the crimes you deny, Mr. Gerdes. I've shown plenty of it, as you know.

Originally Posted by tfs

Thanks to fearless scientific investigators, like Mr. Gerdes, the truth is starting to bubble to the surface.

You are obviously suffering from serious delusions of adequacy, Mr. Gerdes. And for a "fearless scientific investigator" you are mighty scared of answering questions. On the RODOH forum you ran away from well over 200 questions I asked you, remember?

Originally Posted by tfs

Here's and article that may interest you.

BTW, what is YOUR best single piece of forensic proof?

The forensic or archaeological reports about mass graves found at Belzec, Sobibor and Treblinka will do, thanks. How about making us a list of massacres you accept as factual (stuff done by "Jewish Bolsheviks", you know) and identifying your "best single piece of forensic proof" for each of them, Mr. Gerdes? Should be a piece of cake for a "fearless scientific investigator".

----------------------------------
New York Times
July 2, 2009
Rethinking the Holocaust

Today’s idea: The Holocaust needs a major reassessment, a historian argues, because the symbolic power of Auschwitz obscures the Nazis’ mass shootings and other atrocities in the East early in the war.


Associated Press

Much more to it than Auschwitz. History | Auschwitz and its gas chambers distort our vision of the Holocaust, Timothy Snyder of Yale says in a lecture adapted for the New York Review of Books. His reasoning: Since it was a “labor camp as well as a death factory” largely for West European Jews later in the war, Auschwitz’s liberation at war’s end yielded numerous survivors free to recount their experiences. Not so Holocaust victims caught behind the Iron Curtain.

Most of the killing of Jews had been carried out much earlier, Snyder says. “An adequate vision of the Holocaust would place Operation Reinhardt, the murder of the Polish Jews in 1942, at the center of its history,” he says, including the horrors of the death camps Treblinka, Sobibor and Be zec — the latter of which, “though the third most important killing site of the Holocaust, after Auschwitz and Treblinka, is hardly known.”

Next in importance are the Nazis’ mass shootings in the Soviet Union, eastern Poland and the Baltics in 1941-42, often with local assistance (”All in all, as many if not more Jews were killed by bullets as by gas …”). This “Shoah by bullets” killed a million Jews in 1941 alone, Snyder says, “the equivalent of the total number of Jews killed at Auschwitz during the entire war.”

“In shorthand, then, the Holocaust was, in order: Operation Reinhardt, Shoah by bullets, Auschwitz,” Snyder says, “or Poland, the Soviet Union, the rest.”

Yet, he adds, even this accounting omits the atrocities of “the state that Hitler was chiefly concerned to destroy, the other state that killed Europeans en masse in the middle of the century: the Soviet Union.” [New York Review of Books]

--------------------------

Nothing new there for me or for any fairly knowledgeable researcher, but thanks anyway.

[Roberto Muehlenkamp]

Originally Posted by T.F. Scheb

Yup. 'What a tangled web they weave . . .'

They need to overcome this oft repeated falsehood:

"Four million Jews -- about two-thirds of the six million who
perished in Europe at the hands of the Nazis -- were murdered at
Oswiecim and its subsidiary camps."

You should do something about your ignorance, Mr. Gerdes. The "oft repeated falsehood" was never part of historiography west of the Iron Curtain.

[Roberto Muehlenkamp]

Originally Posted by T.F. Scheb

We're waiting to hear from you, Muley.

Who is "we", Mr. Gerdes?

Greg Gerdes and his sockpuppets?

[Roberto Muehlenkamp]

Originally Posted by T.F. Scheb

Are you doing your homework, Muley?

The question is when you will start doing yours.

Originally Posted by tfs

Are you dropping the dogma and siding with Copernicus?

Dogmas I leave to faithful fools like you, Mr. Gerdes. I prefer evidence.

Originally Posted by tfs

Are you taking the NAFCASH Challenge?

I took that challenge long ago, IIRC. And if you were not too cowardly to state that you will accept as evidence what historians and criminal investigators would accept as evidence, I would already have claimed the reward.

[Roberto Muehlenkamp]

New blog on the "Holocaust Controversies" blogspot:

The Old Chimp and his Apprentice

Excerpt:

The main reason why I have not yet claimed the reward is known to who has been following my discussions with Gerdes and was last expressed in my post # 2089 on the VNN thread Archeological Investigations of Treblinka: Gerdes persistently refused to state what evidence he would accept as proof meeting the requirements for claiming the reward, running away from every question in this sense or responding with meaningless hysterical "what part of the word 'proof' do you not understand" – screams.

Therefore, and in order to give Gerdes a last chance to make his "challenge" into something resembling a serious reward challenge rather than a transparent publicity act meant to fool hopeless suckers, I hereby challenge Gerdes to overcome his well-known cowardice and put the following statement on his NAFH website, in big bold letters (the color I leave to his dubious taste):

"In order to claim the reward, the applicant must submit evidence that would be considered by a US court of justice duly applying the pertinent rules of evidence as proving beyond a reasonable doubt the location and contents of at least one mass grave at Treblinka or Sobibor containing human remains that correspond to at least one tenth of one per cent of the amount of bones, bone fragments, teeth, ashes or other human remains that can be reasonably expected to lie in the soil of the respective former camp if a minimum of between 700,000 and 800,000 Jews were killed at Treblinka and between 150,000 and 250,000 Jews were killed at Sobibor."

The next step would be NAFH placing the reward money (in the improbable case that Gerdes & friends can collect such amount) on an Escrow account, but let’s do one thing at a time. As soon as Gerdes has placed the required statement in the required form on the NAFH site, I shall contact SKEPTIC magazine and start preparing my submission of evidence regarding Treblinka and/or Sobibor for publication in that magazine.

Will Greg Gerdes be able to muster the minimum amount of courage and honesty required to put this statement on the NAFH site and keep it there, or will he again go into a hysterical "what part of the word 'proof' do you not understand" – act?

We shall see.

[T.F. Scheb]

Originally Posted by Roberto Muehlenkamp

I took that challenge long ago, IIRC. And if you were not too cowardly to state that you will accept as evidence what historians and criminal investigators would accept as evidence, I would already have claimed the reward.

I do criminal investigtions almost daily. Based on your 'evidence' I'm afraid a grand jury would turn thumbs down on the case. Care to try it?

That is why you liars are so afraid.

Why don't you come up with your own challenge? I could use the $$$$$.

[Roberto Muehlenkamp]

Originally Posted by T.F. Scheb

I do criminal investigtions almost daily. Based on your 'evidence' I'm afraid a grand jury would turn thumbs down on the case. Care to try it?

That is why you liars are so afraid.

Why don't you come up with your own challenge? I could use the $$$$$.

The only thing you do almost daily, Mr. Greg Gerdes aka "T.F.Sheb" aka "craig curtis" aka "tfsfcsupporter" aka "Celtic Patriot", is to sit in your trailer trying to drown in rocky mountain pisswater the fathomless cowardice that led you to run from our appointment at Sobibor on 15.10.2008 and from hundreds of pertinent questions I have asked you, and that now keeps you from making a clear statement about your standards of evidence and even from posting under your own stinking name.

[T.F. Scheb]

Originally Posted by Roberto Muehlenkamp

The only thing you do almost daily, Mr. Greg Gerdes aka "T.F.Sheb" aka "craig curtis" aka "tfsfcsupporter" aka "Celtic Patriot", is to sit in your trailer trying to drown in rocky mountain pisswater the fathomless cowardice that led you to run from our appointment at Sobibor on 15.10.2008 and from hundreds of pertinent questions I have asked you, and that now keeps you from making a clear statement about your standards of evidence and even from posting under your own stinking name.

You clearly demonstrate the behavior of a person who has no case. Obfuscation and name calling seems to be your stock-in-trade. Please understand that I wouldn't know Mr. Gerdes (or any of the others you mention) if I tripped over him.

I think it is best that you present some forensic proof else the proofs brought to light by the so called "deniers" is the most believable story.

People are starting to talk, you know. What with the holocaust of the Pal's
and the perpetual whining about the alleged holocaust of the jews.

Best of luck.

[T.F. Scheb]

Muley, people are starting to talk. Here's something for your reading pleasure.

Debating The Holocaust -
A New Look At Both Sides
By Thomas Dalton
11-14-9

Softcover book, 280 pages
ISBN: 1591480051 / 978-1591480051

In this remarkable, balanced book, the author skillfully reviews and compares "traditional" and "revisionist" views on the "The Holocaust."


On one side is the traditional, orthodox view -- six million Jewish casualties, gas chambers, cremation ovens, mass graves, and thousands of witnesses. On the other is the view of a small band of skeptical writers and researchers, often unfairly labeled "deniers," who contend that the public has been gravely misled about this emotion-laden chapter of history.

The author establishes that the arguments and findings of revisionist scholars are substantive, and deserve serious consideration. He points out, for example, that even the eminent Jewish Holocaust scholar Raul Hilberg acknowledged that there was no budget, plan or order by Hitler for a World War II program to exterminate Europe's Jews.

This book is especially relevant right now, as "Holocaust deniers" are routinely and harshly punished for their "blasphemy," and as growing numbers of people regard the standard, Hollywoodized "Holocaust" narrative with mounting suspicion and distrust.

The author of this book, who writes under the pen name of "Thomas Dalton," is an American scholar who holds a doctoral degree from a major US university.

This is no peripheral debate between arcane views of some obscure aspect of twentieth century history. Instead, this is a clash with profound social-political implications regarding freedom of speech and press, the manipulation of public opinion, how our cultural life is shaped, and how power is wielded in our society.

Amazon.com: Debating the Holocaust: A New Look At Both Sides (9781591480051): Thomas Dalton: Books

Amazon.com: Debating the Holocaust: A New Look At Both Sides (9781591480051): Thomas Dalton: Books

[Roberto Muehlenkamp]

Originally Posted by T.F. Scheb

You clearly demonstrate the behavior of a person who has no case. Obfuscation and name calling seems to be your stock-in-trade. Please understand that I wouldn't know Mr. Gerdes (or any of the others you mention) if I tripped over him.

I think it is best that you present some forensic proof else the proofs brought to light by the so called "deniers" is the most believable story.

People are starting to talk, you know. What with the holocaust of the Pal's
and the perpetual whining about the alleged holocaust of the jews.

Best of luck.

Blah, blah, blah.

Whatever it is that you call "forensic proof" (I guess you mean physical evidence) has been presented, along with much other forensically relevant proof.

And your cowardice in denying yourself is again duly noted, Mr. Gerdes.

[Roberto Muehlenkamp]

Originally Posted by T.F. Scheb

Muley, people are starting to talk. Here's something for your reading pleasure.

Debating The Holocaust -
A New Look At Both Sides
By Thomas Dalton
11-14-9

Softcover book, 280 pages
ISBN: 1591480051 / 978-1591480051

In this remarkable, balanced book, the author skillfully reviews and compares "traditional" and "revisionist" views on the "The Holocaust."


On one side is the traditional, orthodox view -- six million Jewish casualties, gas chambers, cremation ovens, mass graves, and thousands of witnesses. On the other is the view of a small band of skeptical writers and researchers, often unfairly labeled "deniers," who contend that the public has been gravely misled about this emotion-laden chapter of history.

The author establishes that the arguments and findings of revisionist scholars are substantive, and deserve serious consideration. He points out, for example, that even the eminent Jewish Holocaust scholar Raul Hilberg acknowledged that there was no budget, plan or order by Hitler for a World War II program to exterminate Europe's Jews.

This book is especially relevant right now, as "Holocaust deniers" are routinely and harshly punished for their "blasphemy," and as growing numbers of people regard the standard, Hollywoodized "Holocaust" narrative with mounting suspicion and distrust.

The author of this book, who writes under the pen name of "Thomas Dalton," is an American scholar who holds a doctoral degree from a major US university.

This is no peripheral debate between arcane views of some obscure aspect of twentieth century history. Instead, this is a clash with profound social-political implications regarding freedom of speech and press, the manipulation of public opinion, how our cultural life is shaped, and how power is wielded in our society.

Amazon.com: Debating the Holocaust: A New Look At Both Sides (9781591480051): Thomas Dalton: Books

5.0 out of 5 stars Truth needs no laws to support it.

By SmokeNMirrors (London)

Any truth - or should that be "truth" - which needs to be enforced by law is by its very nature not truth at all - for if it was truth there would be no need for enforcement. Never has been, never will be.

Truth simply is. It's what happened. And what actually happened is always believable, even if sometimes worthy of further thought. This particular story - and let us be absolutely clear about this, it IS a story - is quite simply not believable. This is exactly why it needs laws to support it. And thus we have our confirmation: the story is not true.

A superb and easy to read overview of the main points of the "Great Debate" ("Great Refusal To Debate"?) Sterling job Mr. Dalton.

And let's also be very clear about this. Those who refuse to debate, especially in a supposedly open society, even more especially when they insist they have truth on their side, refuse only when they know they cannot win - because they know they do NOT have truth on their side.


5.0 out of 5 stars Finally, some clear thinking

By Kenneth A. Morgan "Playwright" (Milwaukee, WI USA) -
As a skeptic of both sides of the Holocaust debate - was there or wasn't there, and if there wasn't, then what? - I've long hoped for a book that would shed light where there was only heat. DEBATING THE HOLOCAUST comes as close as I can hope for, and it is a remarkable accomplishment.

Rather than writing a review longer than the book itself, I'll just first note that with Thomas Dalton's book, the biggest single problem has finally been addressed, That It Has Been Impossible To Grasp The Big Picture Of The Holocaust Because Of The Incoherence Of The Story. The goals of Nazi policy, the means by which it was ordered and carried out, major events and where they happened (nobody really knows where the burial and cremation grounds of Chelmno are), the technical challenges that would come with a mass extermination effort, even something as basic as the death totals; nothing about the Holocaust story is consistent from one source to another. Over the decades figures, testimonies and documents have been exaggerated, reduced, misrepresented, changed or even disappeared, and in many cases with the obvious goal of keeping certain details a mystery so that awkward questions don't come up (Saul Friedländer - I'm talking to you!). When Dalton writes that he found "...a Holocaust story in tatters..." he simply states the truth, and it is easy to see why two important historians, Michel De Bouard and Jean-Claude Pressac, remarked that the historical record of the Holocaust is "rotten".

To deal with this, Dalton introduces a remarkable (and easy!) analytic tool which he calls the death matrix, a technique that combines various tables into a single analytic field that clearly demonstrates the properties of any account of the six alleged extermination camps. It can be done by anybody who has a spreadsheet option on their computer. Not unique to Dalton, it's a common tool in several technical fields, and you have to wonder why anti-revisionist John Zimmerman, who is a professor of accounting and has to use similar tools in transaction analysis, never used it in his various refutations.

For the reader, this means a book where you have to take pen to paper and do some homework of your own, but that is a refreshing change to Holocaust books which don't just ask but demand that you swallow whatever they say without question. Dalton's results when he applies his death matrix are clear, transparent and easily understood, but Dalton clearly states that certain data rests on questionable assumptions and that his use of the tool is preliminary and needs refinement (I could already suggest a revision where Dalton credits Krema II at Auschwitz with cremating 11,000 bodies at a time when it was out of service, the six weeks from the beginning of May through June 12 of 1943). It's a terrific tool, something that becomes clear when the tables reveal that the combined work of exhumations and cremations at Belzec had no choice but to run at a rate of 92,000 per month. That's better than 3,000 per day, 125 per hour, a corpse dug out of the ground and thawed and burned to fragments and ground to powder every 30 seconds; and on wooden pyres in the dead of a Polish winter when weather conditions would have frozen the ground rock-solid and rendered many days impossible for work. That account is ridiculous; whatever the truth is, it's something else. Why didn't somebody think of this technique before?

Avoiding the dreary name-calling, Dalton divides the two camps into "traditionalists" and "revisionists", and then divides the revisionists into the "agitators" and "academics". Another good idea where ideas are sorely needed; when it comes to the revisionists Dalton intelligently ignores the "agitators" and concentrates on the solid arguments of the academics. Revisionists who have made it some sort of holy crusade to challenge the Holocaust will not be happy with this book. Dalton clearly states that the Holocaust cannot be dismissed as a hoax, a fraud or a conspiracy (the financial exploitation of it and the loathsome criminalization of challenging it are another matter). Something awful happened, but exactly what it was, and how it fits into the even bigger picture of the Second World War is impossible to determine with the history that we have.

As accessible as a book that addresses technical issues can be, DEBATING THE HOLOCAUST would make an excellent high school textbook, teaching young people about the story while challenging them to accept nothing until they've applied their own brains to it. Certainly a better choice than THE DIARY OF ANNE FRANK, a book which has nothing in it about the Holocaust but nevertheless is required (forced?) reading on the subject.

While my review lists five stars, I'm actually giving it four and a half, with half a star taken off for listing a large percentage of the deaths at Majdanek as "natural causes" in one of the tables. This is insensitive to say the least. In their 2003 book on the camp (one of only two studies ever made!) revisionists Carlo Mattogno and Jurgen Graf, no defenders of the Holocaust, are themselves aghast at the way some 40,000 people died slow deaths of exposure standing in the open, sewage soaked fields. These are not "natural causes". As a police worker I know that "Official Indifference" is a crime that American police, fire and rescue workers can be charged with, so even if the Nazi's didn't intend to kill these people they are responsible, at the very least, for mass manslaughter.

With that unfortunate beauty mark addressed, I can finish with a preview of Dalton's epilogue, which is depressing. Dalton points out that there is an appreciable amount of common ground between traditionalists and revisionists; no academic revisionist has ever denied that tragic atrocities happened, and the best (and bravest) traditionalists have themselves noted that there is something terribly wrong with the history, which suggests that a combined effort between the two camps holds an excellent possibility of finally bringing to light a clear and coherent picture of what the events of the 1940's really were.

But it ain't gonna happen. As B'nai Brith director Ian Kadegan ominously crows, "The memory of the Holocaust is central to The New World Order" , and goes on to obscenely call it "...Western Civilization's greatest failure" (that would actually be the Congo Corvée, something that only die-hard Mark Twain fans have heard about). The traditional story of the Holocaust is a multi-billion dollar cash cow that enriches some of the most corrupt institutions on Earth, and has truly become an idolatrous religion that too many people are staked in. If the traditional story falls, not only reputations and livelihoods but power will be lost, for the traditional Holocaust story is used as a club to dictate what morality is by people who have no authority to do so, and to intimidate them not to question that authority.

Which means reading this book is may actually qualify as a revolutionary act. The enemies of free speech can exact a price, but they can't stop you. That's why the right is called unalienable. Not even God can take it away. Thanks for the book Thomas.

So it's only now that you discover this screed by "Thomas Dalton, PHD", Mr. Gerdes?

You are rather slow on the uptake, my friend.

If you were a little more nimble, you would have noticed that there are already several reviews on Amazon showing up Mr. "Dalton" as just another run-of-the-mill "Revisionist" fraud.

One of them is mine

One of them is mine
One of them is mine One of them is mine

:

I have read the book's Introduction and Chapter 1, which are available online (link: http://www.debatingtheholocaust.com/cover ), and I don't agree with Leucippe's invoking criminal laws against denial as an argument against the book, for I'm in favor of unrestricted free speech.

However, Leucippe's warning that Mr. Dalton's book is an attempt to sell ideologically motivated propaganda to an unwary readership seems highly pertinent to me after what I have seen of the book, also through its previous favorable reviews and an ill-reflected message posted by the publisher, Mr. Santomauro (who amusingly also wrote one of the reviews - the "next best" thing to Mr. Dalton himself telling readers how great his book is) under Sergey Romanov's article "Why the diesel issue is irrelevant" (link: http://holocaustcontroversies.blogsp...rrelevant.html ) on the "Holocaust Controversies" blog (http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com/ ) - a site of "minor Web-based activity", according to Dalton's Chapter 1, which nevertheless seems to have Dalton and his publisher sufficiently worried to dedicate it some dishonest hand-waving remarks, of which Mr. Santomauro kindly provided an instructive example.

The presentation may be new, and Kenneth A. Morgan's review (which also points to a lack of basic humanity on the part of Mr. Dalton) suggests that Mr. Dalton employs some new tricks (namely the "death matrix" that Mr. Morgan is so enthusiastic about) to pull the wool over his readers' ears. But there seems to be nothing new in the content (except maybe for some lame "correction" attempts like the hilarious theory, proclaimed in Chapter 1, that the Holocaust is not a "hoax" but "a fish tale, in which one catches a trout but claims it was a shark"), which comes across as essentially nothing more than a regurgitation of well-known "Revisionist" rhetoric and falsehoods, produced at a time when "Revisionism" has run out of new straw-men and red herrings and is therefore reduced to selling the old ones in a new can. "Old Herrings in a New Can" is accordingly the title of this review, and also of a series of articles that is being prepared on the Holocaust Controversies blog, which I suggest reading before deciding to buy the book. I for my part don't intend to spend money on it, not only because it seems prohibitively expensive in view of the expectable contents and I don't feel like financing "Revisionism", but also because I'm confident that I will find it available for free download on a "Revisionist" website sooner or later.

The rating is one star because that's the minimum required by the rating software, which unfortunately doesn't allow for a less favorable rating.

A final note to the five-star-reviewers of this book, who might be wont to suspect B'nai Brith or some other Jewish organization behind this review: I am a non-Jewish German citizen, proud of my German heritage and of my German relatives who lived through World War II, including an uncle who was killed fighting on the Eastern Front. I don't receive any sort of financial or other compensation for my anti-denial activities, and I neither coordinate them with anyone other than my fellow HC bloggers (three of whom are non-Jews as well), and that only on certain occasions. What I do is motivated by nothing other than my aversion to what I consider to be not only offensive hate speech, but also as far removed from serious historiography as creationism is from the theory of evolution, or the flat earth theory from established geography.

Not to mention the following Holocaust Controversies blogs:

A discussion with Michael Santomauro and Thomas Dalton, Ph.D.

Old Herrings in a New Can: Thomas Dalton’s Debating the Holocaust (1)

Is Dalton More Dishonest Than Graf?

And there's more to come, even though my colleagues and I give priority to "creative" liars like Mattogno over mere parrots like this "Dalton" clown.

[T.F. Scheb]

The wolrld is getting upset with Jewish actions words and deeds. Have you studied the pogrom curve? History repeats.

People are talking, you know.

BTW, I'm not Mr. Gerdes and you know that

[Roberto Muehlenkamp]

Originally Posted by T.F. Scheb

The wolrld is getting upset with Jewish actions words and deeds. Have you studied the pogrom curve? History repeats.

People are talking, you know.

I'm sure that pogroms are what Gerdes would like to have.

Originally Posted by T.F. Scheb

BTW, I'm not Mr. Gerdes and you know that

Whence should I know?

[Alex Linder]

The humanity...all those poor wonderful art critics and labor leaders and psychiatrists and editorial writers. All lost to us forever. Nothing left to remember them buy but mislabeled and doctored photos, and anonymous liars on the Internet to spread them.

[Roberto Muehlenkamp]

Originally Posted by Alex Linder

The humanity...all those poor wonderful art critics and labor leaders and psychiatrists and editorial writers. All lost to us forever. Nothing left to remember them buy but mislabeled and doctored photos, and anonymous liars on the Internet to spread them.

Quite a few baseless claims in the last sentence, Mr. Linder.

Or let's say that they are based on wishful thinking alone.