[Diego Raga]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door 1207

dat geven ze op de unief
oa bronnenonderzoek, fascinerend vak

klutz natuurlijk niet

jouw bron, we hadden het net over bronnenonderzoek
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instit...torical_Review
antisemitisch, openlijk negationistisch, pseudowetenschappelijk,...
moet ik me daar echt verder in verdiepen of dit serieus nemen?

Ge leest dus écht niet wat ik aan andere forummers schrijf, eh.
Ik heb deze link al gegeven in deze draad/post #495 aan zo’n dreigende muilkorver met ’n zurig asemke , maar voor jouw plezier geef ik het nog eens aan:

http://forum.politics.be/showpost.ph...&postcount=673

Heb je nog zo’n zion-wikietje in voorraad ?

jij komt niet op het idee dat de nsdap op het einde vd oorlog heel misschien, met de Duitse grûndlichkeit, die documenten vernietigd heeft?

Jij beweert dat, jij dient dat dus aan te tonen.
So show me the candy.

online vindt ge getuigenverhalen vd sonderkomando's

Daarover meer in het volgend gedeelte van deze post.
De getuigenissen van kampcommandanten zijn in ieder geval verkregen door marteling:

How the British Obtained the Confessions of Rudolf Höss

"Rudolf Höss was the first of three successive commandants of the Auschwitz concentration camp. He is often called "the Commandant of Auschwitz," and the general public knows of him from a book published under the title Commandant in Auschwitz.

He appeared before the International Military Tribunal as a witness on 15 April 1946, where his deposition caused a sensation. To the amazement of the defendants and in the presence of journalists from around the world, he confessed to the most frightful crimes that history had ever known. He said that he had personally received an order from Himmler to exterminate the Jews. He estimated that at Auschwitz 3,000,000 people had been exterminated, 2,500,000 of them by means of gas chambers. His confessions were false. They had been extorted from Höss by torture, but it took until 1983 to learn the identity of the torturers and the nature of the tortures they inflicted upon him.”

INSTITUTE FOR HISTORICAL REVIEW
http://www.********/jhr/v07/v07p389_faurisson.html

Of dacht je soms dat de gevangen genomen Duitsers zich konden beroepen op de Conventie van Genève ?

de joden die in oa Auschwitz de doden uit de gaskamers mochten halen en in de ovens moesten steken.
of zijn dat allemaal leugenaars omgekocht door de zionisten?

er zijn ook ss-kz-bewakers die getuigd hebben
ook leugenaars?

de joodse overlevenden? ook leugenaars?

Je vragen zijn terecht, ik hoop dan ook dat je de antwoorden daarop als terecht zult kunnen beschouwen.
Ik ga je dus ’n boterhammeke geven waar je even zoet mee zult zijn, maar het zal je vraaghonger alvast even stillen.

Kijken, proeven, kauwen en slikken, smakelijk:

Dubious testimony

“Much of the evidence for the Holocaust story presented at Nuremberg and in subsequent trials has been "survivor testimony." As numerous historians have acknowledged, though, such testimony is often defective. /55

Gerald Reitlinger cautioned readers of his detailed study, The Final Solution, that Holocaust evidence, including Nuremberg documents and testimony, cannot be accepted at face value: "A certain degree of reserve is necessary in handling all this material, and particularly this applies to the last section (survivor narratives) ... The Eastern European Jew is a natural rhetorician, speaking in flowery similes." /56 French historian Jean-Claude Pressac likewise warned in his detailed book about Auschwitz that "extreme care is required with the testimony of survivors ..." /57

Jewish historian Hannah Arendt observed in her book Eichmann in Jerusalem that the "eyewitnesses" who testified in the 1961 trial in Jerusalem of Adolf Eichmann were only rarely able to distinguish between what actually happened to them years earlier and what they had read, heard or imagined in the meantime. /58 Holocaust historian Lucy Dawidowicz similarly noted that "the survivor's memory is often distorted by hate, sentimentality, and the passage of time. His perspective on external events is often skewed by the limits of his personal experience." /59

French historian Germain Tillion, a specialist of the Second World War period, has warned that former camp inmates who lie are, in fact, /60 very much more numerous than people generally suppose, and a subject like that of the concentration camp world -- well designed, alas, to stimulate sado-masochistic imaginations -- offered them an exceptional field of action. We have known numerous mentally damaged persons, half-swindlers and half fools, who exploited an imaginary deportation. We have known others of them -- authentic deportees -- whose sick minds strove to even go beyond the monstrosities that they had seen or that people said happened to them.

Jewish historian Samuel Gringauz, who was himself interned in the ghetto of Kaunas (Lithuania) during the war, criticized what he called the "hyperhistorical" nature of most Jewish "survivor testimony." He wrote that "most of the memoirs and reports are full of preposterous verbosity, graphomanic exaggeration, dramatic effects, overestimated self-inflation, dilettante philosophizing, would-be lyricism, unchecked rumors, bias, partisan attacks and apologies." /61

Shmuel Krakowki, archives director of the Israeli government's Holocaust center, Yad Vashem, confirmed in 1986 that more than 10,000 of the 20,000 "testimonies" of Jewish "survivors" on file there are "unreliable." Many survivors, wanting "to be part of history" may have let their imaginations run away with them, Krakowski said. "Many were never in the places where they claimed to have witnessed atrocities, while others relied on second-hand information given them by friends or passing strangers." He confirmed that many of the testimonies on file at Yad Vashem were later proved to be inaccurate when locations and dates could not pass an expert historian's appraisal. /62”

The Nuremberg Trials and the Holocaust
http://www.********/jhr/v12/v12p167_webera.html

Tot zover de 'betrouwbaarheid' van die getuigenissen...

Noot: Ik haal er slechts die gedeelten uit, die direct antwoord geven op je vragen.
Als het je écht te doen is om de zaken van die periode te achterhalen, kan je de artikels beter in hun geheel lezen, kwestie van de omvang van de context recht aan te doen.