Facebook Twitter Gplus RSS

Best Arguments Against Auschwitz


 Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Reddit Share on LinkedIn
5 Comments  comments 

5 Responses

  1. Sophron

    The situation surrounding the tombstone is especially sad. I looked up additional photographs of the marker, and I noticed that visitors to the cemetery have already defaced (to some degree) the swastika on the monument. See, for example, this larger photograph that shows more detail:


    There are scratch marks all over the Hakenkreuz, as though visitors have taken nearby stones or have used car keys to scratch it in an act of malicious spite, which is certainly disrespectful to the deceased gentleman.

  2. Thank you, Sophron, for this super-enlargement of the gravestone. I did notice at the time of the program that the swastika looked sort of fuzzy, but didn’t have time to look further into it. I really appreciate your bringing it to our attention. This shows the nature of jews and anti-racists like nothing else. They are the haters.

  3. Sophron

    This vandalism is not an isolated incident, and Jews in recent times have desecrated graves belonging to Germans who died even before the rise of the National-Socialist movement. In the 19th century, beginning around the 1860s, certain German Christians from Württemberg, belonging to the evangelical Templer movement that split off from the Lutheran church, emigrated to Palestine. There, they established what became known as “German Colonies,” and they erected many fine buildings that were later sequestered by Jews. Their work includes some of the finest historic European-style buildings in the cities of Jerusalem, Haifa, and Jaffa, as well as quaint homes that were later converted into cafes, businesses, and private residences for Israeli Jews.

    A concise but sensationalized account of the German Colony in Jerusalem can be found here, with some good photos albeit with an obligatory anti-Nazi spin.

    The Templers left their own cemeteries, and there are also a number of locations in which German dead from the First and Second World Wars were interred. With unprotected graves of Germans in such proximity, it is no surprise that Israeli Jews have availed themselves of the opportunity to unleash their hatred, as they did here:


    This article, only from last October, describes one such incident, only one site among 17 vandalized by Israelis in the past three years. Young Jewish radicals defiled the Protestant Cemetery of Mount Zion (estabilshed in the 1830s) and vandalized the graves of British and Germans, including some prominent men. The article lists some prominent Germans whose graves were desecrated:

    “The most notable of them is Johann Ludwig Schneller, founder of an orphanage and the most advanced printing press in 19th century Jerusalem. Also damaged was the grave of Edmund Schmidt, the German consul general at the beginning of the 20th century. The grave of Ferdinand Vester, who built the house where a branch of the US Consulate General to Jerusalem is located today and who was related to the founders of the storied American Colony Hotel, was also damaged.”

    There was, of course, no international outcry, and I doubt any public expense has been paid to restore the monuments. This occurs even as the German government continues to pay enormous sums to the state of Israel in restitution as well as military aid, as well as the German state’s generous payments to individual Israelis in the form of stipends given to Holocaust survivors.

  4. I caution against the word reconstruction.

    When I met Professor Faurisson in 2000 he complained about the fact that Mark Weber had introduced the word reconstruction into one of his articles in regard to Auschwitz Krema I. He had written this letter:

    Auschwitz I: Not “reconstruction” but falsification

    LETTER (for publication)

    to Mark WEBER and Greg RAVEN, Institute for Historical Review

    I deplore the fact that, in its September-December 1999 issue, the Journal insists on saying that the Auschwitz main camp “gas chamber” visited by millions of tourists over the decades is “actually a postwar reconstruction” (photo caption, p. 13), or simply that this “alleged gas chamber […] is not in its original state” (p. 67). For more than twenty years I have kept repeating and demonstrating that it is strictly a “falsification”. The last time I had occasion to say this was… in that very issue, in an article entitled “The «Gas Chamber» of Auschwitz I” (p. 12-13). Therein I quoted two antirevisionist historians: Eric Conan and Jan van Pelt. The former, in 1995, had used the exact equivalents of the words “false” and “falsifications”; he even wrote: “In the late 1970s, Robert Faurisson exploited these falsifications all the better as the Museum officials balked then at acknowledging them”. The latter, in 1996, used the words “falsified” and “falsifying”.

    Remember that, in 1992, David Cole, who unfortunately was not very well acquainted with the subject, was ensnared by Franciscezk Piper who told him that today’s “gas chamber” was “very similar” to the original one. Piper was lying: it was not “very similar” but crudely falsified, as D. Cole could have proved to him immediately if he had not been ignorant of the original and authentic blueprints which I had discovered in 1976 and published in 1979.

    February 28, 2000

    Maybe I misunderstood, but my understanding or many years has been that the building itself is original. Only certain things about it have been changed.

    If you say that it was a “reconstruction” or “built after the war,” you are invalidating Fred Leuchter’s results, at least in regard to Krema I.

  5. Changing the roof from peaked to flat (with induction holes) is the biggest “reconstruction” and is indeed a falsification. But that is never mentioned when they show tourists the diagram posted outside the bldg. simply showing some interior walls removed. Faurisson’s point is well taken.

© the White network