In his latest article here, Mr Wear and his team make the great mistake of criticising the denier busting website “Holocaust Controversies“. With the kind permission of Sergey Romanov, I post his response here in full.
A quick response to some boring nonsense.
Author: Sergey Romanov
The long-winded and correspondingly boring third-tier denier John Wear (see this blog devoted to debunking him) has published a long-winded and boring piece “comparing” euthanasia to the Holocaust and it has been brought to my attention that he has mentioned our blog.
First, let’s take a quick look at the kinds of arguments he proffers.
Contrary to Wear, the extermination intent of the Nazis is documented, including Hitler announcing his extermination decision to the high-ranking Nazis.
Contrary to Wear, the “first Holocaust” claim is bunk, and he simply lies about the predominance of Jews in the Bolshevik revolution, revealing his true colors. And no, 150000 Jews did not serve in the Wehrmacht, those were Mischlinge who were pretty soon kicked out.
It is funny to see a denier relying on confessions for a change, and pointing to the alleged lack of confessions as evidence for something not having taken place (where is the “Nuremberg torture” narrative LOL?).
Contrary to Wear, a mere empty gas-tight room with two gas-tight doors (clean and unclean sides) could be used as a makeshift delousing chamber, and adding an extractor fan and gas masks would mean we’re all set. Indeed, Zyklon B was designed for the “extraordinarily easy” use and could actually be used – with corresponding precautions – to delouse any building. It is not clear what posting a photo of sophisticated-looking steam autoclaves was supposed to prove in regard to Zyklon B delousing. Poor Wear.
Indeed, the only way the deniers could even begin to attempt to explain the presence of the “gas cellar”, “gassing cellar” and “gas chamber” in the crematoria is to claim that those were some kind of delousing installations (which is easy to debunk since they do not appear on a list of the delousing installations). This is Mattogno’s hypothesis, and it assumes that the morgues in questions were, indeed, fit for use as Zyklon B delousing chambers. So Wear’s primitive argument falls apart faster than a cheap suit.
With one known exception, gas vans were not used in the Aktion Reinhardt camps, so Wear shows his predictable absolute ignorance on the topic. (As a side note: the use of the homicidal gas vans is well-documented).
Comparing public knowledge of something happening nearby with something happening in the far-away occupied Poland is of course ridiculous.
But it’s nice to see Wear claiming that between 3 [sic] and 500,000 died in the Dresden bombing. Given that the actual figure is 25,000, should we go full “revisionist” and assume that either the bombing never happened or it was exaggerated by some sinister forces?
Eyewitness evidence for the Holocaust is no more or less reliable than any other eyewitness evidence.
The “large” number of survivors depends only on the definition of a survivor. That between 5 and 6 million Jews are missing is a fact and most of them cannot be accounted for by the deniers. Indeed, we have a standing challenge to the deniers to name a single person who went through Treblinka, Belzec, Sobibor and Chelmno to the “Russian East”. 1000$ per name. Still no takers… As an alternative, they can try to explain the fate of the about 320,000 Hungarian Jews deported to Auschwitz in 1944 and deemed unfit for work. Still *crickets* from the deniers on that score.
Wear then shows why he’s third-tier by repeating the silly Auschwitz chimney meme.
OK, now we come to the interesting part:
In fact, Himmler’s Posen speech of Oct. 4, 1943, has been called “the best evidence” to prove the Holocaust happened. Himmler states in this speech: “I am referring here to the evacuation of the Jews, to the extermination of the Jewish people…it’s in our program, elimination of the Jews, extermination.”
Most translations of Himmler’s Posen speech assume that the German word “ausrotten” means murder or extermination. David Irving, who is very fluent in the German language, testified at the second Ernst Zündel trial that this is an incorrect translation of the word “ausrotten”:
There is no doubt that in modern Germany the word ausrotten now means murder. But we have to look at the meaning of the word ausrotten in the 1930s and 1940s, as used by those who wrote or spoke these documents. In the mouth of Adolf Hitler, the word ausrotten is never once used to mean murder, and I’ve made a study of that particular semantic problem. You can find document after document which Hitler himself spoke or wrote where the word ausrotten cannot possibly mean murder.
Citing the proven liar David Irving, who actually erects a strawman – it is not claimed that ausrotten means “murder” – is hardly a smart idea.
Problem #1 for Wear: the meaning of the word hasn’t changed in the slightest since the 1940s.
Problem #2: even the leading German deniers don’t doubt the meaning of the word. They merely argue it was used abstractly in this case.
Problem #3: like most (all?) deniers, Wear omits the other word used by Himmler in that 04.10.1943 speech – umbringen – which means literal killing:
“Wir haben das moralische Recht, wir hatten die Pflicht unserem Volk gegenüber das zu tun, dieses Volk, das uns umbringen wollte, umzubringen.”
We have the moral right, we had the duty to our people to do it, to kill this people who wanted to kill us.
In the text of the 06.10.1943 speech we read:
“Es trat an uns die Frage heran: Wie ist es mit den Frauen und Kindern? – Ich habe mich entschlossen, auch hier eine ganz klare Lösung zu finden. Ich hielt mich nämlich nicht für berechtigt, die Männer auszurotten – sprich also, umzubringen oder umbringen zu lassen – und die Rächer in Gestalt der Kinder für unsere Söhne und Enkel groß werden zu lassen. Es mußte der schwere Entschluß gefaßt werden, dieses Volk von der Erde verschwinden zu lassen.”
We were faced with the question: what about the women and children? – I decided to find a clear solution to this problem too. I did not consider myself justified to exterminate the men – in other words, to kill them or have them killed and allow the avengers of our sons and grandsons in the form of their children to grow up. The difficult decision had to be made to have this people disappear from the earth.
This second speech equates ausrotten and umbringen by the way, which once again makes a mincemeat of Wear’s linguistic silliness.Wear continues:
Other defenders of the Holocaust story assume that the Nazis used code words such as “special treatment” to hide their genocide of European Jewry.
 For example, see http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com/2006/06/gauleiter-arthur-greiser.html.
Here Wear shows his dishonesty once again, since we don’t “assume” anything, we prove it:
“From further correspondence we learn that Himmler granted permission to subject tubercular Poles to Sonderbehandlung (see his letter of 27.06.42 [NO-244]) and that Chief of Security Police and SD had no scruples about Sonderbehandlung of incurable Poles [NO-245]. In a reply to Himmler’s permission to specially treat the incurable Poles, Greiser says that it is not necessary to inform Hitler, since the latter had given him permission to do as he sees fit [NO-249]. Attached to this reply is a letter from Dr. Kurt Blome with objections to Sonderbehandlung of the incurably ill Poles [NO-250]. Blome lists two other alternatives – isolation of seriously ill persons, and creation of reservation for all TB patients. It was Blome who wanted Hitler to give explicit permission for this “radical procedure” of Sonderbehandlung, if it was necessary after all:
I could imagine that the Fuehrer, having some time ago stopped the program in the insane asylums, might at this moment consider a “special treatment” of the incurably sick as unsuitable and irresponsible from a political point of view. As regards the Euthanasia Program it was a question of people of German nationality afflicted with hereditary diseases. Now it is a question of infected sick people of a subjugated nation.
Blome then warned that this action couldn’t be made secret, as they knew from experience with the “euthanasia” action. He was worried that the news of this action would be used in enemy propaganda.
Himmler was impressed by Dr. Blome’s arguments. In a subsequent letter he withdrew his permission and asked to search for another way to proceed [NO-251].”
Since Sonderbehandlung here could neither be isolation of the incurably ill Poles, nor a special reservation for them (since both of these solutions are listed as alternatives to Sonderbehandlung), and since Sonderbehandlung is equated in its damning PR effects to the very “euthanasia” that Wear does not deny, it very obviously meant killing. It’s not an “assumption”, it’s an inevitable conclusion.
And since in this series of documents they spoke of the Sonderbehandlung of 100,000 Jews by the Sonderkommando Lange, this also proves the mass murder of the said Jews, more on which here.