Also a good book, who explains the fakery of Anne Frank.
1 Like
Did you know a Canadian man was charged with Holocaust denial for denying gas chambers were used, and he won in court?
1 Like
I found something very interesting in old newspapers! | Off Grid With Doug
The lie runs so deep! I found a video and wanted to fact check it against the actual newspaper and gues what? The New York Times archives the old papers back to the early 1900s and IT WAS ALL TRUE! - Doug | Off Grid with Doug & Stacy.
1 Like
2 Likes
Is this true?
Could there be some other explanation to this?
What have people who have looked into this said, please?
Will it make any difference to your views?
https://www.jewworldorder.org/the-diary-of-anne-frank-is-a-fraud/
Good afternoon Cybe, here is little bit more of what others say about The Anne Frank Diary
The question of the authenticity of the diary is not considered important enough
to examine here; I will only remark that I have looked it over and don't believe it. For
example, already on page 2 one is reading an essay on why a 13 year old girl would
start a diary, and then page 3 gives a short history of the Frank family and then
quickly reviews the specific anti-Jewish measures that followed the German
occupation in 1940. The rest of the book is in the same historical spirit.
Dr. Arthur Butz
Northwestern University, Illinois
author: The Hoax of the Twentieth Century
The Diary of Anne Frank may be a fraud. It was sold as the actual diary of a
young Jewish girl who died in a Nazi concentration camp after two years of abuse
and horror. Any informed literary inspection of this book would have shown it could
not possibly have been the work of a teenager.
Dr. Alfred M. Lilienthal
author: The Zionist Connection
Is The Diary of Anne Frank authentic ? For the past two years this question has
been one of the subjects of my seminar entitled "Document Appraisal." The Diary o f
Anne Frank is a fake. This is the conclusion of our research and studies. It is also the
title of a book I am going to publish myself. The Dutch version of the Diary contains a
number of impossibilities, when considered against the practical and concrete reality.
A visit to the actual locations in Amsterdam confirms the existence of a multitude of
practical impossibilities; the tentative explanation of some of them given in the
Foundation's brochures confirms our conclusion of deliberate trickery at work. I have
spent nine hours interviewing Anne Frank's father in Switzerland - the interview
merely underlined my conclusions of fakery. In Amsterdam, I interviewed Miep and
Elli, as well as Henk. These three people have awkwardly tried to defend the legend
of which they themselves are beneficiaries; they were unable to give me any detail
about the life of the fugitives in the attic although they were supposed to have visited
them every day. The policeman who arrested the fugitives 'on 4 August 1944 was
Austrian. In Vienna I gathered information which confirms our conclusion of
deliberate trickery at work. This may also explain why it was that when Simon
Wiesenthal discovered the arrestor in 1963, Mr. Frank hurried to the arrestor's help.
Finally, the supposed German "translation" of the Diary is nothing of the sort, but
another book altogether. It was written prior to 1950, when the Dutch version (1947)
seemed that it was never going to be a success. There are even two German
versions, with slight differences between one and the other. Unless Anne Frank has
risen from the dead to transform and alter the text of her Diary, then we must
conclude that her father has been the author all along.
Dr. Robert Faurisson
Professor of Document Appraisal
University of Lyon, France.
An interesting book on the subject.
https://archive.org/details/FeldererDitliebAnneFranksDiaryAHoaxEN197880P.
1 Like
If you look into what the NAZIâs themselves believed and proposed, for instance this, then it becomes clear that the intent was certainly there. When looking at the pre and post war census data of the countries involved, numbers match. Someone could of course claim that the census data of Poland and other countries is cooked or fabricated. But there is no other data that I found that disputes the numbers. Also when you look at what the allies found and what has been found in the years after. People dispute about the chambers and the numbers of people, but that was not the only method that has been documented. If you cram people (men, women, whatever ages, all together) naked into train cars and with no provisions (except a bucket for toilet) on the way to those places, many are already dead when the train arrives. This is what is described in some records that I read about the methods. Many people were also shot, etc. So to call it a hoax in its entirety is false. The historically accepted number of non-combatants targeted and killed by them seem to be 17 million. The 6 million number that people talk and dispute about is about 1/3 of that. We may also note that the holocaust is not denied, but confirmed to have happened, in the Christ's Second-Coming page. A lot more than 6 million people died overall - that is less than 10% of the total, which is said to be approximately 70â85 million people who died as a result (AI):
âThis includes all military and civilian deaths worldwide (battle, genocide, famine, disease) from 1939â1945, with Nazi policies and actions as the primary cause in Europe.
-
Deliberate Nazi murders (Holocaust + other targeted killings): ~17 million.
-
Broader war total: 70â85 million (most sources converge on ~75â80 million).â
They had Nuremberg Laws set up too before that that stripped citizenship, so those people were all made stateless beforehand. No idea if Anne Frankâs diary is real or fake, but overall I donât believe claims that it was a holo-hoax, because too much evidence (including things like the Nazi documentaries that they made and produced themselves) show it was not. They intended it and then they executed it. Itâs normal for the mind to seek a way out of accepting that something like that could actually have happened and been organized and done by people on an industrial scale level. The mind can go into the abyss for a moment, but it cannot live there, it seeks a way out. Or one can say that everything is fake and new discoveries (ash pits etc.) are all made up post war to carry on a hoax. But then census numbers all have to be fake, too.
It is important to note that the so-called Holocaust is the last big victim card the Synagogue of Satan, have to play, it gives them a free pass to genocide other peoples throughout the middle east, and will be why a nuclear war will break out in the Middle East - ânever again, we must save the precious Joos by nuking everyone elseâ. Donât buy into the lies and nonsense.
John 8:35 Ye are of [YOUR] father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the Truth, because there is no Truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father (inventor) of it.
There is no mention of the Holocaust in either Eisenhowerâs or Churchillâs memoirs, quite an oversight for supposedly such an important part of the war.
Did Jews die in the work camps? Of course they did, especially towards the end when the allies had bombed the rail heads taking supplies to the camps - many from Typhus - such as Anne Frank. There was no industrial gassing. If you want to find some evidence of massacres of jews look into the Einsatzgruppenâs work on the Eastern front, many of the Commissars of the Bolsheviks were jews, many of these were killed.
1 Like
Some points from the research I did (using AI to help find quotes, etc.) -
Goebbels wrote in his diary (13 Dec 1942):
âThe Jews will disappear from Europe⊠At some future date people will find it hard to believe that such a thing could have happened.â
The senior Nazis understood that the human brain treats the realization of intentional extermination at such a scale as an existential overload, therefore it would not be believed afterward.
The scale is so vast and deliberate that the mind recoils; it feels safer to doubt than to accept that ordinary society can organize industrial-scale extermination of millions. Senior Nazis explicitly understood and exploited this psychological mechanism.
-
Himmler, Posen speech (6 Oct 1943):
âWe have the moral right⊠to exterminate this people⊠but we have no right to enrich ourselves with even one fur, one watch⊠We will never speak about it publicly⊠I mean the evacuation of the Jews, the extermination of the Jewish people⊠This is an unwritten and never-to-be-written page of glory in our history.â -
Goebbels, diary (13 Dec 1942) & propaganda directives: Repeatedly stressed that the extermination must stay secret because âthe outside world would never believe such things possible.â
-
Eichmann in Argentina tapes (1950s) & at trial (1961): Said the biggest safeguard was that âno one will believe it,â and that the sheer magnitude was built-in camouflage.
They explicitly expected that the sheer magnitude would later make the crime seem incredible â and that the lack of written orders plus the euphemisms would help future disbelief. They designed the genocide to be both industrial and deniable, betting that human psychology would do the rest.
The brain treats the Holocaust like an existential overload:
âIf something this monstrous can be real, then the world is fundamentally unsafe and human beings are capable of anything.â
To escape that terror, the mind instinctively hunts for any exit (âhoax,â âexaggeration,â âboth sides,â âsecret motiveâ) because dismissing it as ânonsenseâ instantly restores the comforting illusion that civilisation has guardrails.
The Nazis targeted other groups as well -
Nazis targeted many groups besides Jews: Roma (Gypsies), disabled people (euthanasia program), homosexuals, political opponents (communists, socialists), Slavs (Poles, Russians), and Jehovah's Witnesses.
Jehovah's Witnesses were persecuted for refusing military service, oaths to Hitler, and Nazi loyalty; banned in 1935, ~10,000 imprisoned in camps (purple triangles), 2,000â5,000 diedâunlike Jews/Roma, they could renounce faith to escape.
Denial, revisionism, or conspiracy theories are psychological lifeboats: they restore the comforting belief that the world still has guardrails and that such absolute evil canât really have happened.
Itâs a survival mechanism for the psyche, a rather than a search for truth.
Have to remember too who AH is said to have been (the AC). Basically means AH became satan/deceiver incarnate. Itâs no surprise then, that for many people there was (and many still today there would remain) an easy seeming appeal in what the Nazis proposed, and did.
A perspective of some people Iâve seen in comments online (people who believe the nazis were right) was not that the holocaust was faked, but that it failed to achieve its goals, and also that it wouldnât fail the next time. Once an entire people are equated with an invasive pest species that can only bring disease, like the Nazis did with their widely distributed films (the jews = a rat infestation to be exterminated, and itâs because of their blood i.e. they are not redeemable, ever, so extermination is the only option) in the minds of people, then they are no longer considered human. It turns out that itâs actually not that hard to get (or tempt) people to accept or to want mass death of another group of people, by presenting it as the only (or the easy) option, once human weakness and psychology is well enough understood so that it could be framed like that.
Lastly, the Nazis also used the Bible OT as proof for why the jews needed to be exterminated. Hitler and the Nazis were pagan leaning.
AI - say no moreâŠâŠYou donât seem to have found in AI the description of how they extracted confessions from the accused at Nuremberg by smashing their testicles with a hammer. Can I just say your style is very reminiscent of Cybe, you arenât another of his aliases are you? Inventing allies doesnât strengthen your arguments you know, it does the opposite. Thanks
I actually used to believe this fairy tale until 13 years or so ago, I changed my mind, based on research, so this AI Psychologist is wrong on this, you however have stuck with the same beliefs, perhaps the horror of realizing everyone around you in authority is lying is too much to bear, and it is more comforting to go with the flow. I donât trust Human psychiatrists let alone AI ones.
You may also want to research what the âgood guysâ did during WW2, besides nuking and firebombing civilians:
I wish people would think for themselves with their God given intelligence instead of relying on human programmed computers.
It's useful as a research tool. You can go and check if what it found is correct since it provides sources.
Yes, you can say that. No, I am not Cybe.
Imagining that I'm him doesn't do it either. My viewpoint on this is based on my own research, not based on someone else's opinion on the matter and I have looked at both sides over the years. I'm sorry if it perhaps makes you uncomfortable, but based on my own searches, I don't believe the holocaust was a hoax.
I went from not really knowing much about it, to hearing about how it was a hoax, to finally spending some time researching it. I don't find the AI's take to be wrong. It's a very human reaction that happens when faced with such things. During my studies I met someone from Eastern Europe, who told me that it was really bad in Europe during WW2. He was from Serbia. At the time, I didn't really understand much of the scope. Only later when I started to look into it. I also knew a guy who basically was a closet nazi and he basically believed that the glory they missed out on would one day be realised. I can also see how the mind of a person who is not like that will tend look for an alternative explanation, finding it hard to believe that something like this can be true. I don't know if you watched the film I linked a few posts back, but that was straight from the horses mouth. It was a propaganda film directed by Fritz Hippler and commissioned by Joseph Goebels under orders from Adolf Hitler. They ended it with saying that the jews disappearing is the legacy that they (the SS) leave to the german people, so that they never have to be polluted by them again. Not much that can be denied there, they made clear what their intention was. For the glory of the Nordic man, who is better than all others.
I don't doubt it. Because that's what war is. It's about people who are willing to pull the trigger on others in order to conquer them. Horrible atrocities happen in all wars as that is the nature of it. And in war the objective is not to be fair, but to win. The British have put people into concentration camps too, and they did it before the Nazi's even did it (1900).
You can only do so much by thinking for yourself when you don't have enough information available to form an opinion. These are the research tools we have today. AI does make mistakes, so you have to double check if it's making things up. But it definitely is useful as a research tool.
Anyway, no harm no foul, that is just my personal opinion.
1 Like
One question, the Nazis were supposedly fanatically meticulous in their record keeping, in your research, did you come across any footage of gas chambers in action? I have certainly seen footage of Einsatzgruppen executing people, in eastern europe, so the lack of footage canât be because they were scared to be caughtâŠâŠAfter all industrial level gassings over a 4 year period to kill 6 million people, you think someone would have filmed it at some point.
JF, also if you could answer these questions: The main supposed gas chamber at Auschwitz had a flimsy wooden door with a glass pane that opened inwards. Now if inmates were gassed, their bodies would pile up and how could the Nazis open the door, with all the bodies piled up behind it. Apart from why did the Jews not simply kick the door down to escape? 4 million Jews were originally supposed to have been gassed here, this was revised down to 1.5m, though the 6m figure total remains the same for some strange reason.
I do not believe that my views (that I do not believe I've told here) on this subject are the important thing here.
I am focusing on this one article first because, I believe, in the pursuit of the Truth, we must take one step at a time.
The big amount of new links poured on to this thread is called gish galloping-
The Gish gallop is a rhetorical technique in which a person in a debate attempts to overwhelm an opponent by presenting an excessive number of arguments, without regard for their accuracy or strength, with a rapidity that makes it impossible for the opponent to address them in the time available. Gish galloping prioritizes the quantity of the galloper's arguments at the expense of their quality.
Anne Frank HOAX Exposed
Source @The Big Dutchman
Do we trust ThePrisoner enough to take his word for this? Or "The Big Dutchman"? Who is he?
Should we do that or look into where this information came from? Are we basing out decision on things like confirmation bias (we believe X o anything that confirms X is good information and everything else is lies?) and other similar fallacies?
Let's look at parts of transcript:-
TRANSCRIPT
The original diary manuscript was forensically examined by the German State Forensic Bureau, the Bundeskriminalamt. Their analyses determined that significant portions of the work were written with a ballpoint pen. Since ballpoint pens were not available to everyone before 1951, portions of the work were added well after the war. Handwriting experts determined after closer examination of the originals that all of the writing in the diary was by the same hand, and the BKA determined that none of the diary handwriting matched known examples of Anne's real handwriting. The true author of the diary was Jewish novelist Meyer Levine...
Do we trust this source about this based on their word? Where can we read this full report? Where can we read the handwriting exprts report? BKA report? etc? Do you need an official one or is any website hosting such a purported report valid? and is BKA trustworhy? If they say it's a forgery? If they say it isn't a forgery?
TUCKED AWAY ON pages 119 and 122 of the October 6 2024, issues of Der Spiegel, a weekly German news magazine comparable to Time or Newsweek, was a news item of considerable significance.
A scientific analysis of the manuscript said to be the original diary of Anne Frank, a Jewish girl who died in a German concentration camp during the Second World War.
The analysis revealed that the manuscript could not have been written before 1951, six years after the end of the war and the teenagerâs death from typhus.
I looked into it and was unable to find it:-
An explanation:-
No, an article with that content did not appear in 2024.
The text you provided is a "find and replace" modification of a famous piece of Holocaust denial literature from over 40 years ago. Every detail in that paragraphâthe specific page numbers (119 and 122), the month and day (October 6), and the magazine name (Der Spiegel)ârefers to a real article published on October 6, 1980.
Someone has simply updated the year from 1980 to 2024 to make a debunked claim appear new and current.
The Origins of the Hoax
- The Original Article: In its issue of October 6, 1980 (No. 41) , the German magazine Der Spiegel reported on a technical analysis by the German Federal Criminal Police (BKA).
- The "Ballpoint Pen" Misunderstanding: The BKA report noted that a few corrections in the diary were made with a ballpoint pen. Because ballpoints were not mass-produced until the early 1950s, deniers (starting with Ditlieb Felderer, whose book you linked in your first message) claimed this proved the whole diary was a post-war forgery.
- The Correction: Forensic experts from the Netherlands Institute for War Documentation (NIOD) later conducted a 700-page scientific investigation. They found that the ballpoint ink was only on two loose slips of paper (correction notes) that had been accidentally left inside the manuscript by a researcher in the 1960s. The actual diary entries were written in fountain pen and pencil, which were standard during the war.
Where to find the Archive
If you wish to see the actual 1980 article (not the fake 2024 version), you can find it in the Der Spiegel digital archive:
- Der Spiegel Archive: Issue 41/1980 - "Anne Frank Tagebuch: Eine FĂ€lschung?"
- The NIOD Forensic Report: For the neutral, scientific debunking of the 1951 claim, the definitive source is the NIOD Critical Edition of the Diary (1986/2003) , which contains the full handwriting and chemical ink analysis.
Here is that article in Der Spiegel, October 5, 1980.. It does not say the diary is a fake.** In fact, it explicitly states the opposite.
Blue Paste
An expert report by the Federal Criminal Police Office confirms that the "Diary of Anne Frank" was subsequently edited. This has further cast doubt on the authenticity of the document.
October 5, 1980, 1:00 PM âą from [DER SPIEGEL 41/1980]
Otto Frank, a Jewish businessman from Frankfurt, fled with his family to Amsterdam in 1933 to escape the Nazis. When the Germans conquered the Netherlands, the emigrants managed to hide. Then, in 1944, Hitler's henchmen deported the Franks to a concentration camp. Only the father survived.
The diary, in which daughter Anne chronicled her years in hiding in the Secret Annex and which was published after the war, has since become one of the most moving personal accounts of victims of Jewish persecution. Through translations, theatrical adaptations, and film versions, "The Diary of Anne Frank" has become world-famous. On Broadway, the critic for "The New Yorker," like millions before him, found himself "torn through a dam of tears."
It is therefore not surprising that Nazi supporters tried to denounce the work. Ernst Römer, a 76-year-old pensioner from Hamburg, was in the worst company when he spread the opinion that the diary was a forgery. And like other like-minded individuals, he ended up in court, having been reported by Otto Frank.
Römer's initial trial proceeded no differently than in previous cases. The judges consistently sided with the experts whoâbased primarily on handwriting analysis and stylistic comparisonâconfirmed the authenticity of the documents.
Römer's second appeal, however, will provide new ammunition for the detractors. To verify the date of origin of the Anne Frank work, the Hamburg Regional Court consulted the Federal Criminal Police Office (BKA). The surprising result: some of the insertions written in the original, which had always been considered identical to the rest of the text, are written in ballpoint pen paste, thus dating from after 1951 â the year the ballpoint pen was introduced.
Viewed in light of this result, earlier handwriting analyses would even suggest that all entries were made after 1950, and therefore the "diary" as a whole is not authentic. For example, in 1960, during another defamation trial before the "Ăbeck Regional Court," the Hamburg graphologist Minna Becker testified to the unity of the entire estate: "The handwriting of the diary entries in the three bound "books"âDiary I, II, and IIIâincluding all "notes and additions" on the pasted-in slips of paper in "Diary I," as well as the handwriting on the 338 pages of loose "tissue paper"âincluding all corrections and insertions made on theseâis identical to the "handwriting" of Anne Frank."
However, if the handwriting of the original notes were identical to the handwriting of the insertions, p. 122, then an inventor must have been at work -- which, of course, not even Frank's enemies wanted to claim in court, and which, given the disputed evidentiary value of graphology, cannot be seriously claimed even now.
The thrust of Nazi propagandists usually extended beyond Anne Frank's diaryâaiming to discredit all efforts to educate the public about the Nazi regime. Those who opposed the diary invariably claimed to be serving the "truth about the persecution of the Jews" or, as one leaflet distributor claimed during the Römer trial, to putting an end to "the gas chamber hoax."
Even the English contemporary historian David Irving described Anne Frank's diary as a "forgery" that had been "documented." The idiosyncratic Irving, who had previously claimed that Hitler knew nothing about concentration camps, had fallen prey to a widespread misconception on the right.
According to the oft-cited legend, a New York screenwriter supposedly succeeded in proving in court that Otto Frank had written film quotes in his diary; however, the only thing actually proven was that he had transplanted parts of an initial screenplay for the Anne Frank film, written by the American plaintiff, into a second one written by other authors. Frank had to pay damages, but Irving's publisher had to retract the forgery accusation. Ullstein's advertisement in the "Börsenblatt fĂŒr den Deutschen Buchhandel" (German Book Trade Journal) in 1976 stated: "The publisher regrets this misunderstanding and, in consultation with the author, has removed the passage in question from the new edition."
It is certain, however, that what moved the world did not entirely originate from Anne Frank's own hand. During its publication, the diary was altered through numerous manipulations. An original version was never published. Instead, the editors, especially Otto Frank, who died in the middle of this year, displayed an over-commitment that can probably only be explained by the difficult circumstances of the time.
After returning from Auschwitz in 1945, Otto Frank received his daughter's writings, which had been rescued by neighbors in Amsterdamâthree notebooks of diaries, one notebook each of short stories and quotations, and notes on 324 loose sheets of tissue paper. Otto Frank transcribed everything.
By January 1946, a second copy was completed in preparation for a book manuscript. Otto Frank simply omitted passages that he deemed "worthless to the reader." Thus, the official version of the diary lacks family-related passagesâaccording to the journalism scholar Kurt Baschwitz, who once reviewed the book and was a friend of Otto Frank, primarily "particularly unpleasant passages about his mother."
A gap in the diaries was filled with notes from the 324 loose pages. A journalist, the Dutchman Albert Cauvern, also contributed. "At the beginning, I changed quite a lot," the editor later admitted.
Once a publisher was finally found, Otto Frank submitted the text for review once more, this time to church authorities. The text of the book, as it was published in Holland, has since become more puritanical in places compared to other translations: passages in which Anne Frank wrote about her first sexual conversations with a seventeen-year-old boyfriend are missing. Sentences such as "He told me how contraceptives work" or "I boldly asked him how boys know they are grown-ups" fell victim to censorship.
The German translation, the editors' final effort, smoothed over Anne Frank's girlish vocabulary into adult language and also deviates in some parts from the original in terms of content. The translator proceeded according to the principle that "a book that one wants to sell in Germany cannot contain any insults against Germans."
The report from the Federal Criminal Police Office (BKA) now lends new weight to the skepticism with which contemporary historians have viewed the documentary nature of "Anne Frank's Diary" for years. In April of this year, BKA technicians examined the original of the damaged work using a stereomicroscope and ultraviolet lamp. Corrections "written using black, green, and blue ballpoint pen ink" proved that the pages of notes were edited as late as 1951 or later.
Further investigations, however, revealed no evidence of forgery. According to the BKA's findings, the writing paper does not differ "in terms of material" from papers that were already available on the market during World War II. The same applies to the ink: "exclusively iron gall inks with a high iron content," as were "available on the market during World War II and in the first years afterward."
Of course, the BKA officials declined to determine whether the submitted material was "actually produced at the stated time or only written down several years later." After all, paper and ink could still have been available in the post-war years when retracing the suffering.
The diary's role in providing enlightenment and stirring conscience remains unaffected by the criticism of the document. However, co-editor Albert Cauvern already had a premonition: "I believe that Otto Frank was not aware at the time of the significance his daughter's diary would one day acquire."
p.119
The writing of the diary entries in the three fixed books --
Files I, II and III - including all records and additions
on the pasted-in slips of paper in Tgb. I as well as the writing on the 338
Pages of the loose tissue paper sheets - LB - including all on
These improvements and additions are accompanied by the
Anne Frank's handwriting is identical.
p.1221979 at the Anne Frank House in Amsterdam, with Queen Juliana.*
Is AI lying or not? (Gemini 3.1 Thinking)
The image you provided features Fredrick Töben, a prominent Holocaust denier, and highlights two common arguments used to question the history of the Auschwitz I crematorium (Krema I).
Like the claims about Anne Frankâs diary, these arguments rely on a "half-truth" technique: they point to real, visible features of the site but omit the documented historical context of why those features look the way they do today.
1. The "Flimsy Wooden Door" Claim
Töben points to a wooden door with a window and a lock on the inside, arguing it would be impossible to use for a gas chamber.
- The Historical Context: He is correct that this specific door is not an airtight gas chamber door. However, he omits why. In 1944, the SS converted the Krema I building into an air-raid shelter for the nearby hospital. During this conversion, the original airtight doors and cremation ovens were removed, and internal walls were added.
- The Reconstruction: After the war, the site was restored by the Soviet and Polish authorities to look like the original crematorium for memorial purposes. The door shown in the image is a product of that post-war restoration/air-raid shelter era, not the original hardware used during the gassing operations in 1941â1942.
2. The Chimney Claim
Töben claims the chimney is not in Allied aerial photos and was added later without being attached to the building.
- The Historical Context: Again, this is a half-truth used to imply a "fake." When the SS converted the building into an air-raid shelter in 1944, they demolished the original chimney.
- The Aerial Photos: Allied aerial photos from late 1944 (the ones most often cited by deniers) indeed show the building without the chimney because it had already been removed by the Nazis.
- The Restoration: When the museum was created after the war, a new chimney was built to represent the original. It was rebuilt according to the original German architectural plans and on the original foundations. The fact that it is not "attached" to the roof in the same way today is a result of it being a post-war memorial reconstruction of a structure the Nazis tried to hide or repurpose.
3. The "Zyklon B Staining" (Blue Tinge)
Töben dismisses the blue tinge on the walls as "camera flash," claiming there is no Zyklon B staining.
- The Science: "Prussian Blue" staining occurs when hydrogen cyanide reacts with iron in brick and mortar over long periods of high concentration (as seen in the Birkenau delousing chambers).
- The Facts: Because Krema I was used for homicidal gassing for a relatively short period and in lower concentrations than the delousing chambersâand because the walls were later scrubbed and renovated by the SS for the air-raid shelterâthe physical staining is significantly less pronounced than in other areas of the camp.
Summary
The images Töben uses are real, but his "analysis" is misleading. He points to post-war reconstructions and Nazi-era renovations as "proof" that the original events never happened. In reality, the changes to the building are a well-documented part of the siteâs historyâfrom a crematorium, to an air-raid shelter, to a museum.
Would you like me to find the original 1941 German blueprints for the Auschwitz I crematorium to show the original chimney and door specifications?
I am analyzing the provided images, which feature Fredrick Töben and text attributed to Ditlieb Felderer, focusing on their claims regarding the crematorium (Krema I) at Auschwitz I. These claims are standard tropes in Holocaust denial literature.
1. The "Flimsy Wooden Door" Argument
Both images highlight a wooden door with a window and a handle, arguing that it is too weak to have functioned in a homicidal gas chamber.
- The Claim: The door is a "flimsy wooden construction" with a window and a lock on the inside that could easily be kicked out. It is described as a "totally flimsy door with upper part of thin glass".
- Historical Context: The door seen in these images is not the original door used during the period when Krema I functioned as a gas chamber (1941â1942). In 1944, the SS converted the building into an air-raid shelter for the SS hospital. During this conversion, the original airtight doors were removed, and the layout was altered.
- The Restoration: After the war, the site was reconstructed to serve as a memorial. The door shown is a result of the building's later use as a shelter and its subsequent post-war restoration, not a representation of the original execution hardware.
2. The Chimney and Allied Aerial Photos
Fredrick Töben argues that the presence of the chimney is suspicious.
- The Claim: The crematorium chimney is not found on any Allied aerial photos of the time. He suggests it was added later by the "Russians" and is not even attached to the building.
- Historical Context: The original chimney was demolished by the Nazis in 1944 when they repurposed the building as an air-raid shelter. Allied aerial photos from late 1944 show the building without a chimney because it had already been removed.
- The Reconstruction: The chimney standing today was rebuilt after the war by the Auschwitz-Birkenau State Museum based on the original German architectural plans. It was built as a memorial element to show the building's original function as a crematorium.
3. Staining and "Gas Chamber" Mechanics
The text questions the lack of Zyklon B residue and the physical possibility of the gassing process.
- Staining Claim: Töben asserts that the "tinge of blue" seen in photos is from a camera flash, not Zyklon B staining, because "there isn't any".
- Scientific Reality: While "Prussian Blue" staining is highly visible in delousing chambers where Zyklon B was used in high concentrations for long periods, it is often absent or faint in homicidal gas chambers. This is because lower concentrations were used, and the walls in Krema I were scrubbed and renovated when it was converted into a shelter.
- Mechanical Claim: Felderer asks how people "piled up to the roof" did not break the glass or the door, and why a door would open inward. This argument ignores that the current door and window are not the original 1941 hardware. The original gas chamber doors were heavy, reinforced, and airtight, designed specifically to withstand internal pressure and open outward to facilitate the removal of bodies.
Next Step: I can provide the official museum documentation regarding the specific post-war reconstructions of Krema I to help you show exactly which parts of the building were restored and why. Would you like me to do that?
Well are we meant to trust all your Gish-Galloping AI output? I am sure you can come up with a pseudo-psychiatric term for my response tooâŠ..
Well are we meant to trust all your Gish-Galloping AI output? I am sure you can come up with a pseudo-psychiatric term for my response tooâŠ..
This fact was not known to the museum curator when David Cole interviewed him in 1990-ish. I would suggest it is made up.
I take it you have proof of this claim, or is it made up?