Comentariu primit pe site

*

  • „Cifra de 6 milione de evrei asasinați este controversată până astăzi chiar la nivelul istoricilor israelieni. Nu însă și existența holocaustului în Europa.”

    Stimate Domnule Puiu, de ce-i atribuiti Domnului profesor Ion Coja lucruri pe care nu le-a zis sub nicio forma – nici el nici Gerhard Menuhin , scriitor ce sustine ca majoritatea evreilor trimisi in lagare erau comunisti, tradatori sau asociatii lor, diversi saboteuri , si ca erau de ordinul zecilor de mii, in niciun caz 6 milioane!
    UNDE VEDETI DUMNEAVOASTRA DECLARATIA CA „NIMENI DIN CELE 6 MILIOANE N-AU FOST TRIMISI IN LAGARE???????
    IO N-O VAD SI O CAUT CU LUPA!!!
    In ce-l priveste pe Adolf Eichmann, el e stiut ca fiind fost un tip labil si foarte influentabil:
    Iata-l pe Robert Faurisson in discutie cu David Irving despre caracterul pliabil al lui Eichmann, cel doritor sa placa si sa-si satisfaca interlocutorul:
    tot aici este vorba si despre minciunile lui Hoss(seful lagarelor) demascate definitiv drept umflate crunt, referitor la milioanele „exterminate”, contrazis chiar de Eichmann.

    NU UITATI CA REVIZIONISMUL NU NEAGA MASACRELE SI ABUZURILE RAZBOAIELOR,……….ALE TUTUROR RAZBOAIELOR!!!!!!!
    NOI LE CONDAMNAM SI LE RESPINGEM RADICAL!!!!!!
    DAR DEOARECE IES MEREU DATE SI INFORMATII NOI, ESTE DREPTUL NOSTRU, SI MAI EXACT DATORIA NOASTRA SA NE INFORMAM INTR-UNA ASUPRA NOILOR DATE.
    MAI ALES CA SE STIE CA CELE 6 MILIOANE APAR CU MULT INAINTE DE RAZBOIUL 2 MONDIAL, in scrierile iudaice.
    Dece va revolta asa de tare reactia de multumire a domnului profesor, ca multam Domnului, nu s-a produs o crima de dimensiunea celor 6 milioane???
    Si mai am o intrebare: despre torturarea detinutilor politici din timpul procesului de la Nurnberg, chiar nu stiti nimic?????
    Pai sa va dau io date caci am garla!!!!!
    Foarte bune date!!!
    DECI DECE II CERETI DOMNULUI PROFESOR ION COJA SA NU-L PUNA
    SUB SEMN DE INTREBARE CHIAR SI PE EICHMANN???
    DATI DUMNEAVOASTRA GARANTII CA EICHMANN N-A FOST TORTURAT???
    NOI NU SUSTINEM ABSOLUT NIMIC DECAT CA E O DATORIE SA NE DOCUMENTAM!
    IN TOT CAZUL LA NURNBERG S-AU OBTINUT DE LA DETINUTII POLITICI DECLARATII AUTOINCRIMINATORII PE BAZA DE TORTURA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    SI SOLSHENYTZIN MENTIONEAZA UN CAZ IMBATABIL DOCUMENTAT:
    IL GASITI AICI:

    http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v12/v12…

    Home
    INSTITUTE FOR HISTORICAL REVIEW
    The Nuremberg Trials and the Holocaust

    (continued from part 1)

    Torture

    Allied prosecutors used torture to help prove their case at Nuremberg and other postwar trials. /72

    Dece s-au ascuns si suprimat documentele lui Eichmann?

    Despre caracterul naiv si labil al lui Eichmann:

    The Suppressed Eichmann and Goebbels Papers

    By David Irving
    http://www.whale.to/b/irving1….

    ROBERT FAURISSON CONTRA DAVID IRVING ABOUT EICHMANN: IN TOATE RAZBOAIELE AU EXISTAT DINTOTDEAUNA MASACRE SI ABUZURI!
    NOI, REVIZIONISTII NU LE-AM NEGAT NICIODATA!!!

    Q: Some years ago in Germany I read an article about Adolf Eichmann, that he was born Adolf Eich, a Jew.

    A: Well, I think that this is a pretty far-fetched story, but he certainly had sympathies for the Jews. He was a great admirer of the Jews and in his own memoirs he describes himself as being more of a Zionist than an SS officer, for what it is worth.

    Q: [Professor Robert Faurisson] About Eichmann, may I ask you if you read the transcripts of Avner Less, the instructing magistrate [in fact, 3,564 pages]?

    A: No, I haven’t.

    Q: [Faurisson] And did you read the transcript of the Jerusalem trial [of Adolf Eichmann]?

    A: No, I didn’t.

    Q: [Faurisson] Maybe we have answers to your questions. You said that the Jews didn’t want the memoirs to be too well known. Perhaps it is because all you have told us supports what Eichmann said in those transcripts. The memoirs are in fact a confirmation of what Eichmann thought was true.

    I have something to add about the personality of Eichmann: he was extremely naive. For example, when Eichmann is asked a question about the gas chambers he doesn’t say „gas chambers,” he says, „Oh yeah, Höss told me about the murder installations,” things like that. And then he says, „Now, wait a minute. I don’t remember the circumstances. Maybe I read that, or maybe somebody told me that… this is possible.” He was very impressionable, the poor man, even before being taken to Jerusalem. He was impressed by Poliakov and all those stupid people.

    A: You’re right; the character of Eichmann is very important. He was pliable, he was easily impressed, he was complacent, and anxious to please.

    Q: [Faurisson] Absolutely. I agree totally with this. It’s very important to understand Eichmann. Now, for Höss we have so many proofs that Höss didn’t say those things, didn’t write those things. When he said, for example, three million people died in Auschwitz — two million and a half in gas chambers, and 500,000 for other reasons — we know from Moritz von Schirmeister that in the car taking Höss from Minden to Nuremberg, Höss said, „Certainly I signed a statement that I killed two and a half million Jews. But I could just as well have said that it was five million Jews. There are certain methods by which any confession can be obtained, whether it is true or not.” [See The Journal of Historical Review, Winter 1986-87, p. 399.] To set the record straight, I don’t know any Revisionist who says that there were no massacres, because there is no war without massacres, especially on the Russian front where you had Jews, and partisans, women, and children all mixed together.

    A: It’s important to say this because we are called Holocaust deniers, and the television screens show you the mass graves and all the rest of it, which we don’t deny.

    Q: [Faurisson] We certainly don’t deny it. Right at the beginning of the Toronto trial [of Ernst Zündel] we said, „This is what we assume, and this is what we contest.” And we assume that there were massacres and hostages and reprisals and so on.

    Now, on to another subject. Do you remember the conversation we had at your home, when I said I realize that General Bruns said that there were massacres and things like that, but at first he doesn’t say that he has seen them himself?

    les

    Nota redacției: Îi mulțumim în mod deosebit dlui RaduȘtefan pentru turnura de frază „el e știut ca fiind fost un tip labil”, frază remarcabilă prin corecta exprimare în limba română veche, autentică, a cronicarilor de odinioară! Se simte filologul… Mulțam, colega!