Today I will conclude reverse debunking the ADL. If you’ll recall, in part one I pointed out how the following ‘myth’ is a strawman because no revisionist says that just because there is no ‘master plan’ the Holocaust didn’t happen. Nonetheless, it is my duty to dismantle the ADL’s talking points.
In the following paragraph the ADL brings up the Wannsee Conference. Holocaust affirmers often invoke the Wannsee protocols, which are the minutes from the conference, as a documented evidence of the ‘final solution’ to exterminate Jews. Holocaust Encyclopedia says, “At the conference, Heydrich outlined the expansion of Nazi mass murder to encompass 11 million Jews in Europe.” However, if one were to read the actual text of the protocols they would discover that the ‘final solution’ is never defined and there is nothing about murdering Jews. In the context of the protocols the term ‘final solution’ refers to deportation, not genocide. For more information on this topic read my article here.
The ADL also mentions testimony from Eichmann. Which is a step up from using something he said while awaiting trial like they did in a previous argument. Is Eichmann a reliable witness? Quite simply, no. In part 28 of Dean Irebodd’s documentary, One Third of the Holocaust, two of Eichmann’s impossible claims are presented. During the trial Eichmann testified, “But I also remember today driving through Lemberg, on the outskirts, and seeing for the first time something I had never seen before, namely a fountain of blood. I passed a site where Jews had been shot some time before and where – apparently as a result of the pressure of the gasses – the blood was shooting out of the earth like a fountain.” For the second absurd claim Eichmann made you will have to watch part 28 of Irebodd’s documentary starting at mark 7:18. Eichmann’s testimony cannot be taken at face value. For more on the unjust nature of the Eichmann trial click here.
In the first part of the final paragraph might sound familiar. This is because the ADL already said, “On January 30, 1939, Hitler warned that if Jewish financiers and Bolsheviks initiated war, “the result will not be the Bolshevization of the earth, and thus the victory of Jewry, but the annihilation of the Jewish race in Europe.” This is just a variation of something Hitler said on several occasions and which is referred to as Hitler’s prophecy. The ADL is basically using the same argument twice (I covered this in part three).
The ADL then states, “On February 24, 1943, he stated: “This struggle will not end with the annihilation of Aryan mankind, but with the extermination of the Jewish people in Europe.”” This is just another variation of Hitler’s prophecy. I’m guessing that there is some creative translation at work. The following image is the source the ADL gives for this statement. Did the ADL forget to proofread their work or did they leave an incomplete note on purpose? I’m assuming they are referring to a book they listed earlier in their endnotes, ‘Holocaust, Jerusalem: Keter Books’. This book is not available online.
Here is an ebay listing of the book in question. I’m going to judge a book by it’s cover and assume that it does not contain sources for its claims. In the end the ADL is just using the same argument three times.
The ADL concludes by saying, “The overwhelming thrust of written documentation, verbal testimony, demographic research and archaeological evidence demonstrate that Holocaust deniers‘ demand for a document that lays out the Nazis‘ “master plan” is a deliberate effort to obfuscate the truth.” I want you to go back and read that sentence again. Done? I’m going to reword it with my truth machine:
The overwhelming thrust of information that we cherry picked and misrepresented to write this rebuttal demonstrate that even documental evidence for the Holocaust is weak. The Holocaust denier’s demand for a ‘master plan’ is something we made up in a deliberate effort to obfuscate the fact that we also don’t have the physical evidence to back up our claims.
As a bonus the ADL include some memes that they made impossible to fully read. Why can’t the ADL address the actual revisionist arguments on these memes?