General Holocaust denial discussion Part III

[HDenier]

Why the hell were all those people in the camps to begin with?

Because they were Jewish, Gypsies, Homosexuals, JW's etc.

Because of a boycott of German goods due to discriminatory Nazi policies?

Was there any reason to enslave millions of men, women, children and the elderly in such appalling conditions to begin with and subject them to the horrors of these camps?

The Holocaust is about much more than the actual killing.

Apparently whatever the Germans did was catchy, we stuck Japanese in 666 camps also, it's just that in those Japanese camps we didn't have any Jews to lie about gas Chambers or being made into soap or ashtrays.... Jews turn any unpleasant situation into a holocaust unfortunately...

Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk

 

[Jeffk 1970]

What's your point in a sentence without nauseating rambling?

Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk

I want to know how this "hoax" operated. Who were the major players, what was the agenda, when and where was this decided?

 

[Porkpie Hat]

Apparently whatever the Germans did was catchy, we stuck Japanese in 666 camps also, it's just that in those Japanese camps we didn't have any Jews to lie about gas Chambers or being made into soap or ashtrays.... Jews turn any unpleasant situation into a holocaust unfortunately...

Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk

Ummm, ya.

As wrong as Japanese internment camps were (and there have been apologies made to the Japanese for this mistreatment), the US didn't round up Japanese from every country they had access to and keep them under such murderous conditions nor did they work them to death.

So why did the Nazi's enslave so many people who really couldn't do them any harm?

And you do realise you're just making a complete fool of yourself and Holocaust denial in general with your childishly idiotic referrals to soap and ashtrays right?

No one here believes that and some have given information as to why those stories exist.

 

[KatieG]

HD, any thoughts?

"Well, first of all you needed the compliance and agreement of the major powers of the Second World War, the US, Great Britain and the Soviet Union. Not only that you needed the compliance of secondary powers like France and Poland. Poland is particularly important because the deportations of the Jews there was hardly a secret. This agreement needed to be iron clad to the point it could survive any shifts in the political landscape.

Next, you needed to fake thousands of documents with corresponding copies available on both sides of the Iron Curtain. This also included making or altering records of both civilian and military authorities so that they matched and corroborated each other. This meant that any original German documents contradicting these fakes needed to be tracked down and destroyed or altered in their turn to avoid future historians from discovering the truth.

Next, all the parties needed to find hundreds of thousands of witnesses that could be intimidated or persuaded to go along with this, along with surviving victims and perpetrators. This also included destroying or altering buildings to match this narrative, along with blueprints of these buildings.

All of this needed to be started before the end of war and completed by the beginning of any court hearings (keep in mind that the decision to try the Nazi leaders came very late in the game, there was disagreement over this between the allies).

You also needed the agreement of all the parties to hide the missing Jews in such a way they could never be accounted for.

Finally, this needed to be done in such that there could never be any leaks.

Ever. No tell-all memoirs, no press releases from disgruntled ex-spies or secretaries, no ex-Nazis safely living in South America announcing to the world the reality of the hoax, no POWs released from the USSR telling his family about the Jews in the USSR on his deathbed, etc."

The more people involved in a conspiracy, the less likely it will succeed. It almost always falls apart. I would never be convinced that the holocaust was a hoax. Too much evidence left behind. Too many people who remember.

Not to mention, my uncle was one of those allied soldiers who liberated a concentration camp.

 

[Ivanesca]

The bombings didn't cause any problems for these camps or the people in them Lemmy? Yes or no?

Sent from my SM-P600 using Tapatalk

No. Firstly, the Extermination camps (AR and Auschwitz) were far outside the range of any bombing, being in Poland and all. Second, the Nazis themselves told us exactly what was causing the problems in those camps. For Auschwitz, SS officer Heinrich Kinna recorded that "imbeciles, idiots, cripples and sick people would be liquidated" and further clarified that "Poles will have to die a 'natural' death contrary to the (unnatural: i.e murder) measures applied to the Jews". As you've been told before, the Commandant of Bergen Belsen wrote a letter stating that the incidence of disease in his camp was in proportion to the number of detainees, and were being exacerbated by Himmler's orders to use Belsen as a sick camp for all remaining inmates, resulting in an unnatural increase of illnesses precisely due to the arrival of former inmates from the East. In short, the "problems" in Belsen (And other Concentration camps towards the end of the war) was a direct result of German Policy, and not your fantasy bombings.

If you're asserting that there's a "food shortage" because of the bombings, forget it. Your heroes' food policy was basically to rob all of Europe to feed themselves and let everyone else starve to death. In other words, any "food shortage" you're insinuating was a direct result of your heroes' policies, too.

Now answer Jeff's question

 

[Airfix]

You act as though the Germans didn't have a right to shoot anybody.

At the village of Oradour-sur-Glane, the day the soldiers came, they killed more than six hundred men, women ... and children. Remember.

They didn't have a right to shoot anybody.

They'd illegally invaded other people's countries, sent in the Waffen SS the Gestapo and Einsatzgruppen (mobile killing units).

In 1940 the SS massacred British soldiers in France who had surrendered to them.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wormhoudt_massacre

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_Paradis_massacre

If they could do that to POWs, what else were the evil vermin capable of ?

In 1944 an SS Panzer division massacred the population of the village of Oradur Sur Glane, not just men suspected of being in the resistance, but the women and children too.

What else were the Nazis capable of ?

What else did they do ?

They murdered millions.

 

[abaddon]

They didn't have a right to shoot anybody.

They'd illegally invaded other people's countries, sent in the Waffen SS the Gestapo and Einsatzgruppen (mobile killing units).

In 1940 the SS massacred British soldiers in France who had surrendered to them.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wormhoudt_massacre

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_Paradis_massacre

If they could do that to POWs, what else were the evil vermin capable of ?

In 1944 an SS Panzer division massacred the population of the village of Oradur Sur Glane, not just men suspected of being in the resistance, but the women and children too.

What else were the Nazis capable of ?

What else did they do ?

They murdered millions.

Or Malmedy, for that matter.

Nevertheless, be prepared for the claim that none of those things ever happened.

 

[Degeneve]

I replied to it. Apparently bombing these areas to hell didn't cause any problems in people's health...what nonsense.

Sent from my SM-P600 using Tapatalk

Any evidence of an allied bombing on Birkenau?

 

[Degeneve]

I really don't care where they went, the issue was what was the "final solution"? It wasn't mass murder as some say here, It was deportation....if you don t like my answer then too bad....

The gas chamber story has been debunked here.

http://www.vho.org/aaargh/engl/FaurisArch/RF981020.html

Faurisson has been debunked since more than 30 years.

The former French Minister of Justice called him once a "falsifier of history". Faurisson sued him for defamation and Faurisson lost the case.

Frankly speaking the words "falsifier of history" applies to all deniers. This summarises what they are doing in a few words.

 

[Degeneve]

They didn't have a right to shoot anybody.

They'd illegally invaded other people's countries, sent in the Waffen SS the Gestapo and Einsatzgruppen (mobile killing units).

In 1940 the SS massacred British soldiers in France who had surrendered to them.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wormhoudt_massacre

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_Paradis_massacre

If they could do that to POWs, what else were the evil vermin capable of ?

In 1944 an SS Panzer division massacred the population of the village of Oradur Sur Glane, not just men suspected of being in the resistance, but the women and children too.

What else were the Nazis capable of ?

What else did they do ?

They murdered millions.

A Wehrmacht unit also killed between 86 and 140 Belgian civilians on 26-28 May 1940: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vinkt_massacre

And this was only the beginning of what would occur in Europe during 5 years.

 

[LemmyCaution]

Learn me...what are you books you recommend?

FOR ALL INTERESTED MEMBERS, here's a list (with input from a colleague who is far better read than I) of titles for learning more about the Holocaust:

General history:
Saul Friedlander, Nazi Germany and the Jews: Volume 1: The Years of Persecution 1933-1939 and Nazi Germany and the Jews, 1939-1945: The Years of Extermination
David Cesarani, Final Solution: The Fate of the Jews 1933-1949
Christian Gerlach, The Extermination of the European Jews
Christopher Browning, The Origins of the Final Solution: The Evolution of Nazi Jewish Policy, September 1939-March 1942
Christopher Browning, Evidence for the Implementation of the Final Solution http://www.hdot.org/en/trial/defense/browning.html (online)
Peter Longerich, Hitler's Role in the Persecution of the Jews by the Nazi Regime http://www.hdot.org/en/trial/defense/pl1.html (online)
Peter Longerich, The Systematic Character of the National Socialist Policy for the Extermination of the Jews http://www.hdot.org/en/trial/defense/pl2.html (online)
Peter Longerich, Holocaust
Raul Hilberg, The Destruction of the European Jews (very expensive but this is an essential bit of reading)

For Poland:
Martin Winstone, The Dark Heart of Hitler's Europe: Nazi Rule in Poland under the General Government
Catherine Epstein, Model Nazi

For Auschwitz:
Yisrael Gutman and Michael Berenbaum, Anatomy of the Auschwitz Death Camp
Robert Jan Van Pelt, The Van Pelt Report http://www.hdot.org/en/trial/defense/van/ii.html (online)
Jean-Claude Pressac, Auschwitz: The Technique and Operation of the Gas Chambers (online)

For Aktion Reinhard:
Holocaust Controversies, https://archive.org/details/BelzecSobiborTreblinka.HolocaustDenialAndOperationReinhard.ACritique (download PDF here, also can be found at HC blog website)
Jules Schelvis, Sobibor: A History of a Nazi Death Camp
Michael Bryant, Eyewitness to Genocide: The Operation Reinhard Death Camp Trials, 1955-1966 (expensive and hard to find - library? really excellent)

For Chelmno:
Patrick Montague, Chelmno and the Holocaust: The History of Hitler's First Death Camp (expensive but indispensable, try a library?)

For the shootings in the occupied east (Einsatzgruppen, police battalions, etc):
Christopher Browning, Ordinary Men: Reserve Police Battalion 101 and the Final Solution in Poland
Alex Kay, The Making of an SS Killer: The Life of Colonel Alfred Filbert
Ray Brandon and Wendy Lower, The Shoah in Ukraine: History, Testimony, Memorialization
Andrej Angrick and Peter Klein, The 'Final Solution' in Riga: Exploitation and Annihilation, 1941-1944

For the camp system:
Nicholas Wachsmann, KL
(many good books for later on individual camps)

See also Nick Terry's "citations" list here and my earlier list here. The titles listed above cover a lot of the basics very well. 1000s of books appear a year, on the general history of the Third Reich and Holocaust as well as on specialized topics, so these three lists omit many, many worthy books. I tried to skew this list toward recent research.

 

[LemmyCaution]

How's the Jewish soap argument?

Hey what about all that Treblinka missing wood?

Treblinka was faced w*ith an almost impossi*ble cremation task: t*o burn 750,000 + bodi*es in just four month*s.* This entails huge* and irreconcilable p*roblems with fuel and* ash disposal** Accor*ding to the tradition*alists, the bodies of* those who were kille*d at Treblinka were p*laced on pyres made o*ut of railway tracks *and burned in the ope*n air. Burning bodies* in open air pyres is* inefficient and woul*d have required an en*ormous amount of wood*.* Dalton states that* 160 kg of wood would* be required per body*.* For Treblinka, bur*ning 750,000 corpses *in four months would *have required one mil*lion kilos (1,200 ton*s) of wood per day. D*alton writes: “In no *case do we have any r*ecord or witness stat*ement of such huge am*ounts of wood enterin*g the camp, being sto*red, or being prepare*d for the pyre.* If t*he wood had been coll*ected nearby, hundred*s of acres of land wo*uld have been defores*ted; if it had been s*hipped in by train, t*here would have been *numerous records of w*ood deliveries.* Ther*e is not one bit of e*vidence for either oc*currence.” A similar *problem existed for A*uschwitzBirkenau, acc*ording to Dalton.* If* the traditionalist n*arrative of its use a*s a mass exterminatio*n camp is correct, th*en after the Jews of *Hungary were deported* to the camp (beginni*ng in May 1944) and k*illed by gassing (acc*ording to the traditi*onalists) more than 7*000 bodies per day wo*uld have had to have *been burned in pits o*r pyres – as the crem*atoria were already o*perating at capacity,* according to the tra*ditionalist view. Thi*s would have required* 1.1 million kilos of* wood per day to fuel* 12-14 burning pits 2*0 hours per day.* Aer*ial photographs of th*e camp taken at that *time do not support t*his type of mass disp*osal of bodies, which* undermines their cas*e for Auschwitz-Birke*nau being a mass-murd*er facility on the sc*ale that is generally* claimed by tradition*alists.**

Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk

You refuse to read and deal with this explanation ("fuel requirements") written by Roberto Muehlenkamp, which I've already linked to, so here it is for forum readers who are interested in this topic.

 

[LemmyCaution]

Apparently whatever the Germans did was catchy, we stuck Japanese in 666 camps also, it's just that in those Japanese camps we didn't have any Jews to lie about gas Chambers or being made into soap or ashtrays.... Jews turn any unpleasant situation into a holocaust unfortunately...

You didn't answer Porkpie Hat's questions but instead changed the subject. I am interested in the answers to what Porkpie Hat asked you . . .

 

[LemmyCaution]

What's your point in a sentence without nauseating rambling?

His point was obvious, stop stalling: what is the history of the "hoax" - who created it, when, where, how - with details, key decisions, methods used, dates, etc?

 

[Tomtomkent]

Isn't it odd. The deniers all want to prove the holocaust was a hoax. They want to tell us what did not happen, and that it we all fell for a lie. But they can't explain how the lie, how all that false evidence was created, by whom, to what end.

So... All we have is foot stomping and incredulity.

Noticing holes in evidence, when evidence was deliberately obscured and destroyed is not a revelation. Pointing out we have a theory that will never be absolute proof is not a revelation.

Offering a better explanation, however seems too much like hard work and honesty.

 

[LemmyCaution]

The more people involved in a conspiracy, the less likely it will succeed. It almost always falls apart. I would never be convinced that the holocaust was a hoax. Too much evidence left behind. Too many people who remember.

Not to mention, my uncle was one of those allied soldiers who liberated a concentration camp.

Indeed. Another point, mentioned on this topic in another forum, is that "The 'Hoax' narrative falls apart once you take a look at the actual policies pursued by the Major Powers after the war." I'd add the Cold War into this, as by the time of the Nuremberg successor trials (the NMT) the east and west were no longer allies and not cooperating on much of anything, let alone prosecuting German crimes.

 

[LemmyCaution]

No. Firstly, the Extermination camps (AR and Auschwitz) were far outside the range of any bombing, being in Poland and all. Second, the Nazis themselves told us exactly what was causing the problems in those camps. For Auschwitz, SS officer Heinrich Kinna recorded that "imbeciles, idiots, cripples and sick people would be liquidated" and further clarified that "Poles will have to die a 'natural' death contrary to the (unnatural: i.e murder) measures applied to the Jews". As you've been told before, the Commandant of Bergen Belsen wrote a letter stating that the incidence of disease in his camp was in proportion to the number of detainees, and were being exacerbated by Himmler's orders to use Belsen as a sick camp for all remaining inmates, resulting in an unnatural increase of illnesses precisely due to the arrival of former inmates from the East. In short, the "problems" in Belsen (And other Concentration camps towards the end of the war) was a direct result of German Policy, and not your fantasy bombings.

If you're asserting that there's a "food shortage" because of the bombings, forget it. Your heroes' food policy was basically to rob all of Europe to feed themselves and let everyone else starve to death. In other words, any "food shortage" you're insinuating was a direct result of your heroes' policies, too.

Now answer Jeff's question

Who knows what he was asserting? I did raise, as a tangent, Allied bombings in the area of Bergen-Belsen, after he wrote about the death toll at the camps being caused by overfeeding of sick inmates by the Allies following liberation. The bombing is another denier canard.

Porkpie Hat asked the most relevant question: why did these camp's exist in the first place? But before going on to such basic issues as that, or to Allied bombing, I wanted HDenier to explain how the high mortality prior to liberation was caused by Allied feeding decisions after liberation. He chose instead to dodge and divert.

You've now made his time here more miserable by laying out the essence of his fallacy in no uncertain times. Danke!

 

[LemmyCaution]

Or Malmedy, for that matter.

Nevertheless, be prepared for the claim that none of those things ever happened.

Or in the same breath if they did, the victims had misbehaved, were Jews, or otherwise had what wasn't done coming.

 

[LemmyCaution]

Isn't it odd. The deniers all want to prove the holocaust was a hoax. They want to tell us what did not happen, and that it we all fell for a lie. But they can't explain how the lie, how all that false evidence was created, by whom, to what end.

So... All we have is foot stomping and incredulity.

Noticing holes in evidence, when evidence was deliberately obscured and destroyed is not a revelation. Pointing out we have a theory that will never be absolute proof is not a revelation.

Offering a better explanation, however seems too much like hard work and honesty.

This is very well stated IMO. Historians and other scholars routinely investigate the anomalies, conflicts between different pieces of evidence, and gaps - and just as routinely improve and revise their theories about what happened and why. There are among scholars constant debate and tension among competing explanations of historical events.

This is partly why deniers like HDenier carping about "the Holocaust narrative" rings so hollow: there's not one narrative, but there are competing and overlapping theories about the history, which are constantly being challenged, revised, improved - just like any period of history (here is a statement on "revisionist history" by James McPherson, appearing on the AHA website):

The 14,000 members of this Association, however, know that revision is the lifeblood of historical scholarship. History is a continuing dialogue between the present and the past. Interpretations of the past are subject to change in response to new evidence, new questions asked of the evidence, new perspectives gained by the passage of time. There is no single, eternal, and immutable "truth" about past events and their meaning. The unending quest of historians for understanding the past—that is, "revisionism"—is what makes history vital and meaningful.

.
Deniers of the Holocaust have historical negation and denial confused with the revision of historical understanding. At least HDenier has chosen his username aptly: his comments have nothing to do with the historical sciences and all to do with a political/ideological agenda which requires negation of historical work as part of its claims.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Isn't it odd. The deniers all want to prove the holocaust was a hoax. They want to tell us what did not happen, and that it we all fell for a lie. But they can't explain how the lie, how all that false evidence was created, by whom, to what end.

So... All we have is foot stomping and incredulity.

Noticing holes in evidence, when evidence was deliberately obscured and destroyed is not a revelation. Pointing out we have a theory that will never be absolute proof is not a revelation.

Offering a better explanation, however seems too much like hard work and honesty.

Exactly the same with Apollohoaxers, Flat Earthers, 9/11 hoaxers, Evolution deniers and Relativity deniers.