General Holocaust denial discussion Part III

Status
Not open for further replies.
No denier knows. They have no answers and don't have a clue.
Back in the day they used to say the Jews did it somehow. I'd like to hear what the current theory is from the this generation of deniers.

Captain Howdy? Mondial? Anyone?

Sent from my SM-N910P using Tapatalk
 
When the "truth" finally gets out, people everywhere will become insanely enraged and just start attacking each other.

Sent from my SM-N910P using Tapatalk

Ah I thought it would trigger cannibalism and using soap & deodorants in inappropriate ways.
 
Not really. Reiver is citing his experience as an expert in the legal system and is using that to explain his point. Mondial's appeal to Fisk Stone on the other hand, doesn't do that. Stone was simply scoring points and attacking his political rival Jackson, and was not citing any legal precedent or procedures that were violated by the IMT, thus his position as a judge was irrelevant. Just like Republicans saying stupid things about ACA are not automatically true because they're senators or whatever. Nice try though.
Yes really. "As a practicing attorney for 25 years, I can tell you that I am most definitely correct." I claim to be more experienced and therefore have more expertise. Border cited no evidence of his expertise nor did he support his argument.

See below for some examples of how stupid Border's argument:
 
Hyperbole much?

So far Billions have survived so much so over population is our greatest threat to the planet - most people alive today are little affected by the holocaust, perhaps you could tell us how its effects a farmer in southern India? A shop keeper in Bali? A policeman in Angola or a rancher in Brazil?
Having worked in the legal system for 21 years I can state that you are incorrect in that regard.
 
You statement - Höss was the architect of the, er, Holocaust - is not supported by your examples, which are all to do with Auschwitz and gas chambers that utilized Zyklon B, by which not even 20% of the Jews murdered by the Nazis perished.

Not quite 30% of the victims were shot to death in open-air executions. Nearly another 30% were asphyxiated in fixed CO chambers. The remainder died in gas vans, in ghetto shootings, by forced starvation and other consequences of privation, and by miscellaneous beatings, hackings, executions, etc.

Time to read up on the Holocaust and leave the hoax behind.

Having worked in the legal system for 21 years I can state that you are incorrect in that regard.
 
Yes really. "As a practicing attorney for 25 years, I can tell you that I am most definitely correct." I claim to be more experienced and therefore have more expertise. Border cited no evidence of his expertise nor did he support his argument.



See below for some examples of how stupid Border's argument:


Perhaps you missed post #2458 where I gave an abbreviated CV.

In case you missed it:

"Enrolled in CAF Primary Reserves in 1987, still serving. Currently the RSM of 30 Fd Regt RCA.
Graduated Carleton University 1991 BA (hons) Law with a concentration in Criminology (thesis on Canadian war crimes legislation)
Became a paralegal with the Public Service (specifically the Dept of National Defence) in 1996 where I still work.

Not enough to have me declared an expert for trial purposes, but enough to hopefully allow people to accept that I'm not talking through my hat."

As for your "examples" of my argument being silly, when I made it, it was related to the example.
 
.
And it wasn't the USSR either. They were no "friend" of the Jews, and their post-war policy was "Do not Divide the dead", which was to downplay the fact that Jews were singled out by the Nazis for killing in Soviet territory. In all official reports of massacres on Russian soil, references to "Jewish Victims" were all edited to "Peaceful Soviet Citizens", changing the narrative from being a genocide specifically against Jews to Capitalist Fascists killing Communists. This was why the Soviet Indictment refers to the victims of Auschwitz as "Citizens of Various countries" instead of as Jews. Later on, the Soviets would crack down on Jewish attempts to commemorate the Babi Yar massacre as a massacre against Jews, and even forced local Jews to sign a document formally blaming "Zionism" for the Massacre. No Soviet Hoax either.
.

Since CaptainHowdy's not interested in having a discussion about the topic, I'll try to move the discussion forward.

The Auschwitz museum was kind enough to share the following article recently

http://lekcja.auschwitz.org/en_22_muzeum/

The article talks about the first years the Auschwitz memorial was in operation. Naturally, the policy I mentioned ("Do not divide the dead") was in effect and affected the initial operation and policy of the museum and memorial. Initially, the CKZP (Central committee of Polish Jews) participated in planning the museum and requested that two blocks (4 and 10) be made available for them for the purpose of setting up a memorial specifically for the Jewish victims (the largest group of Victims). However, when the museum first opened in 1947, only a fragment of the intended exhibits opened, and the fact that the Jews were singled out for killing was downplayed. For example, Block 4 did have a Jewish Khalat (along with symbols belonging to other Polish denominations), but the centerpiece of the exhibit was a Christian cross. Later in 1947, the Polish government formally issued an act/law explicitly stating that the Museum was intended for "Commemorating the Polish Martyrdom and Other Nations (Not Jews)". "Do Not divide the dead" really got rolling in the late 40s and the early 50s, when the Polish Communist government officially started following the Stalinist party line. In accordance with this policy, the already small Jewish exhibits in the museum were shut down and the exhibits made it clear that Jews were not singled out and suffered the same fate as other groups. More importantly, there were also "anti war" protests staged in the museum that depicted the Anglo Americans as the Successors of the Nazis.

The Article also mentions that while the Soviet Government allocated funds for maintaining the exhibits (that were not about the Jews), they allocated nothing else, resulting in the rest of Auschwitz (including Birkenau) suffering wear and tear due to limited maintenance.

So, in summary

1) There was No Hoax. In the first few years of the Memorial's operation, the Polish Government - as the law said - emphasized Polish suffering, and the Genocide against the Jews took a backseat to the Martyrdom of Poland, as depicted in the exhibits.
2) There was No Hoax. The Soviet Authorities shut down the exhibits talking about the Jews and made Auschwitz into a memorial of "communist" resistance against "capitalist" Fascists, and that these Capitalist Fascists were no longer Germans, but the "Anglo Americans"
3) The USSR didn't give a damn about the Jews or about Auschwitz; aside from allocating some funds for the exhibits they wanted, they didn't allocate any for the rest of the site, resulting in most of it falling into disrepair.
4) The "4 Million" Canard is based on a false assumption. Based on these acts and policies, it's obvious that the "4 Million" Number was never intended to refer to Jewish victims, and the alleged "reduction" has no bearing on the total Jewish death toll.

The Hoax never happened. Saggy was talking crap, and so was Mondial.
 
Tu quoque was allowed as a defense for Karl Dönitz on the charge that he committed war crimes by engaging in unrestricted submarine warfare. His attorneys introduced an affidavit from Admiral Nimitz, commander in chief of the US Pacific Fleet, stating that the US had engaged in unrestricted submarine warfare against Japan for the duration of the war.
 
I'm arguing that "you did it too" is a defense. Please keep up.

Okay could you point us to that 'law' being effect, in what country in what year?

Yes your statement is not evidence for it and no it is not our responsibility to prove its wrong. Its your claim so howzabout a link showing such a law exists and has been used in previous cases?
 
Tu quoque was allowed as a defense for Karl Dönitz on the charge that he committed war crimes by engaging in unrestricted submarine warfare. His attorneys introduced an affidavit from Admiral Nimitz, commander in chief of the US Pacific Fleet, stating that the US had engaged in unrestricted submarine warfare against Japan for the duration of the war.



It was also unsuccessful. Dönitz was still found guilty of waging unrestricted submarine warfare against neutral shipping - no additional time was added to his sentence for it based on Nimitz's affidavit and other evidence, but it did not get him found "not guilty."
 
It was also unsuccessful. Dönitz was still found guilty of waging unrestricted submarine warfare against neutral shipping - no additional time was added to his sentence for it based on Nimitz's affidavit and other evidence, but it did not get him found "not guilty."


I don't read the judgement that way.

From the judgement:

In view of all the facts proved and in particular of an order of the British Admiralty announced on the 8th May, 1940, according to which all vessels should be sunk at sight in the Skagerrak, and the answers to interrogatories by Admiral Nimitz stating that unrestricted submarine warfare was carried on in the Pacific Ocean by the United States from the first day that nation entered the war, the sentence of Doenitz is not assessed on the ground of his breaches of the international law of submarine warfare.​

He was convicted of waging crimes against peace, and other war crimes not connected with submarines. Additionally, of all the defendants convicted, Dönitz received the lightest sentence.
 
I wrote,
Originally Posted by LemmyCaution View Post
You statement - Höss was the architect of the, er, Holocaust - is not supported by your examples, which are all to do with Auschwitz and gas chambers that utilized Zyklon B, by which not even 20% of the Jews murdered by the Nazis perished.

Not quite 30% of the victims were shot to death in open-air executions. Nearly another 30% were asphyxiated in fixed CO chambers. The remainder died in gas vans, in ghetto shootings, by forced starvation and other consequences of privation, and by miscellaneous beatings, hackings, executions, etc.

Time to read up on the Holocaust and leave the hoax behind.
And Captain Howdy replied:
Having worked in the legal system for 21 years I can state that you are incorrect in that regard.
I don't know how to reply or even to make sense of this. I can only assume that Captain Howdy doesn't have anything to say about Saggy's false claim.
 
. . . So, in summary

1) There was No Hoax. . . . 3) The USSR didn't give a damn about the Jews . . .The Hoax never happened. Saggy was talking crap, and so was Mondial.
I am reading a biography of Sasha Pechersky, leader of the Soibór revolt in fall 1943. The biography, Sasah Pechersky: Holocaust Hero, Sobibor Resistance Leader, and Hostage of History by Selma Leydesdroff, is not that good (it contains a number of errors, sections are almost garbled, etc)

BUT the narrative raises an interesting question about Soviet memorialization and "official stories" about the Holocaust: if, after the war, the Soviets were busy hoaxing the Holocaust, why didn't they use Pechersky, hero of the Sobibór uprising? Why wasn't he put on the lecture circuit, sent to international trials and forums, and made an icon of the Jewish tragedy and resistance?

Far from using Pechersky to hoax the world, after the war the Soviet authorities hemmed him in: his testimonies were in fact censored and otherwise restricted. To take one example, the 1945 Russian edition of his earliest memoir, based on letters he'd written and a 1944 edition, substituted the term "Soviet citizens" for "Jews." Some of Pechersky's later testimonies were edited by Soviet authorities into conformity with the view that peaceful Soviet citizens suffered under the Nazis, with the Jewish aspect downplayed or outright suppressed. All this reflected the imposition of a Sovietized viewpoint of the history onto Pechersky's actual experience, which in the USSR became virtually impossible for him to tell as he experienced it.

Pechersky was never honored by Soviet authorities as a hero, nor was his story used by them in celebrating war-time resistance or promoting a narrative of the Holocaust. Following WWII, Pechersky in fact he lived and died in obscurity. He had long stretches of unemployment. As a former POW, Pechersky suffered the usual punishment and life-long discrimination given to Red Army soldiers who'd surrendered to the enemy and been taken prisoner. Jewish themes in his story, when he did testify, were consistently downplayed - and he was not even permitted to testify at the IMT or at EIchmann's trial in 1961. A major testimony he gave in 1962 in the USSR was, according to the author, "stage-managed by the authorities."

Indeed, one must use care with such testimonies - but for reasons exactly opposite to those given by Saggy and Holocaust deniers: the pressures and alterations imposed by Soviet authorities were generally to hide and deny the Jewish aspect of the tragedy, not to promote (or "hoax") it.
 
I wrote,
And Captain Howdy replied:
I don't know how to reply or even to make sense of this. I can only assume that Captain Howdy doesn't have anything to say about Saggy's false claim.
False claims are false. What more is there to say? I said that "you did it too" is a defense. Not "Saggy is right"
 
False claims are false. What more is there to say? I said that "you did it too" is a defense. Not "Saggy is right"

Having worked in the legal system for 21 years I can state that you are incorrect in that regard.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom