There is not a single mass grave of holohoax victims.

[dafydd]

Saggy, do you think it a good or bad thing that the holocaust never happened?

 

[Harpo]

Just in case he's still got his SS issue blinkers on:

Saggy, do you think it a good or bad thing that the holocaust never happened?

 

[Meadmaker]

Well, contrary to what I might hope, Irish people can be fools too.

Within this thought is the beginning of wisdom. Run with it. You might be surprised where it leads.

 

[Nick Terry]

I hate to admit it but you have a pretty compelling argument. The ease with which a negative is proven is so obvious that we never even covered the topic in debate class. So of course, anybody who wanted to prove the holocaust didn't happen could easily do so, if it had not happened.

All you need is evidence that something isn't. Germans would have welcomed anybody who could refute the holocaust if anybody could. The right wing sentiment and abhorrence for bureaucracy that made any sort of denazification program absolutely out of the question right after the war was still alive and well in 1949. The findings of the International Military Tribunal were binding on all subsequent war crimes trials in all four occupation zones and upon the Germans themselves when the took over the prosecutions themselves.

No, they were not. The verdicts (rechtskraeftige Urteile) of Allied war crimes trials were binding on West Germany in the Ueberleitungsvertrag or Deutschlandvertrag. That is all. West German courts could not overturn the sentences of war criminals already convicted by an Allied power.

But so what? This means that only in a war crimes trial were the crimes of the holocaust unchallengeable. Any SS man was free to come out of the closet and tell the world that nobody was holocausted, if nobody had been holocausted, as long as he didn't do it in court.

Most SS men were not in court, and there were many, many SS men who had already been convicted and could not be tried again.

And, as you pointed out, after 1955, Germans enjoyed unfettered freedom of speech so saying that nobody was holocausted during the Nazi era would have been allowed, even encouraged except in a court.

Allied censorship was withdrawn in 1949 when the Federal Republic was established. West Germany has never had a pre-publication censorship system. Thus it would have been perfectly possible for someone to have published a book or an article which presented evidence to refute the charges. It would have been perfectly possible, also, to publish in foreign countries.

And what could possibly be inhibiting former Nazis from telling what they knew? By 1955, Eichmann had already been captured and brought back to Israel for a heroes welcome. The Auschwitz Trials of 1964 had come and gone by 1955. The Treblinka trials of 1964 and 1970 were nothing more than pages in the history book by 1955 as well.

Holy chronological gibberish, Batman!

Any former SS man who wanted to refute the holocaust after 1955 could look no further than Wilhelm Staglich and Thies Christopherson to see how challenging the official narrative was a sure ticket to fame and fortune.

One thing you're missing is that a true refutation would have to come from someone outside Auschwitz as much as someone inside Auschwitz. Unless you are a deportation denier, then we are talking about more than 2.5 million people who were deported from across Europe to the camps in the east. Denying that the Nazis had a Jewish policy was never going to fly.

The ony way out would be to say, actually no, the deportees went somewhere else. Meaning, 'the east'. So that means some of the counter-witnesses would have to come from the ranks of those Germans who served in the occupied eastern territories. They were the ones who were going to have to say, I saw 100,000 Jews from Warsaw arrive in Dnepropetrovsk in the summer of 1942. They could be SS, they could be Army, they could be civil servants. Guys like Eichmann involved in organising the deportations could help here, too: no, our deportations only stopped over at Auschwitz and they took off the Jews of working age, the children and old people we took to their new home in the east, given to them by the Fuehrer.

What was needed, was an alibi.

Eichmann could have provided it, when he was interviewed by Willem Sassen. Indeed, that was precisely Sassen's aim. He wanted evidence to refute the charge of extermination, and thought, who better to provide such evidence than the man who was in charge of organising the deportations. If anybody could have provided good evidence against extermination, it was Eichmann. He had need to know. But alas, Eichmann didn't say anything that could refute the charge of extermination; quite the opposite.

Remarkably, even living in the United States isn't a barrier to enjoying the benefits of holocaust refutation. Right now, at this very moment, in the year 2010, John Demjanjuk is reaping the benefits of having been lucky enough to have been a low level guard at Treblinka or maybe Sobibor or maybe somewhere else. And he's not even denying ANYTHING! Can you imagine how great life would be for him if he just came out and said that the holocaust is a pack of lies? He'd be sipping a Mai Tai on his private island and knocking it out with a different supermodel every night!

Instead he's.......I forget. Where is Demjanjuk right now?

Other than to relieve the pressure inside your head, the above has absolutely no point and makes absolutely no sense.

No, you're right. If the holocaust were a lie, there would be a floodgate of old Nazis refuting it.

Actually if the Holocaust were a lie then there would have been a flood of denials and refutations in 1945 when the SS were first interrogated. It is only by hypothesising a conspiracy which is already implausible in 1945 that one can wriggle out of this. It is implausible but not entirely impossible - just incredibly technically difficult to have achieved, and to have left no trace or hint, other than Hoess's sore feet - but becomes ever more implausible the longer time goes on.

Extending the statute of limitations on prosecution for war crimes indefinitely only guarantees the safety of anybody stepping forward. And since the German penal code guarantees freedom of speech as long as you don't say anything that would challenge the victim mentality of the German Jew or cause him to believe that he is not recognized as a victim by the non-Jew, anybody can deny the holocaust.

Thank you Nick Terry. Your arguments become more and more persuasive every day.

Your strawmannery becomes ever more transparent.

I truly marvel at the epochal cowardice of the SS who although they leaped fearlessly across Russian trenches and fought like lions on many fronts in the war, were intimidated even from the distance of many thousands of miles away in their hiding places in Latin America from speaking out and revealing the Truth about the Holocaust. I am amazed at how not one of them had the wit to leave a lengthy account with their sympathetic right-wing lawyer 'to be opened in the event of my death' and published, heck, even in America.

You're right. The hoax is obviously a matter of spirit, of shared comprehension, of consonance and synchronization. It's not a conspiracy

Then please explain why SS men starting in 1945 have testified to extermination in substantial numbers. Without invoking a conspiracy. Saying 'they were afraid of prosecution and told their interrogators what they wanted to hear' does not explain how they knew what to say.

 

[Nick Terry]

Yet by 1955, any SS man could have come out and denied the holocaust. Jesus Motherghuqing Christ. What color is the sky on your planet?

Unresponsive. Debate properly.

 

[Nick Terry]

I don't know where they went.

Doesn't this give you even the slightest pause? I understand that it's denier default mode to refuse any burden of proof and resist the idea of coming up with positive evidence, but jeez.

Unless you can provide some kind of evidence to prove that the Jews deported to the death camps left the camps, then everyone else is entitled to regard the death camps as their final destination.

You are of course welcome to argue that they were then abducted by Ernst Zundel's Nazi UFOs.

But not one argument attacking the evidence from the camps or declaring that the graves need to be examined constitutes evidence that the Jews left the camp. Not one.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Saggy, do you think it a good or bad thing that the holocaust never happened?

 

[Saggy]

WWII mass grave found in Slovenia. Gee, I guess there are still some graves to be found, no?

There are mass graves to be found, as the OP indicates. And, as when a real mass grave is discovered, it is excavated, as in this case.

However, there are no holohoax mass graves. Not one.

The best example of a non-existent holohoax mass grave is the mass grave at Babi Yar. Eulogized by Yevtushenko ....

"And I myself, like one long soundless scream
Above the thousands of thousands interred,
I'm every old man executed here,
As I am every child murdered here."

Somebody forgot to tell Yevtushenko that there are NO bodies interred at Babi Yar.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

There are mass graves to be found, as the OP indicates. And, as when a real mass grave is discovered, it is excavated, as in this case.

However, there are no holohoax mass graves. Not one.

The best example of a non-existent holohoax mass grave is the mass grave at Babi Yar. Eulogized by Yevtushenko ....

"And I myself, like one long soundless scream
Above the thousands of thousands interred,
I'm every old man executed here,
As I am every child murdered here."

Somebody forgot to tell Yevtushenko that there are NO bodies interred at Babi Yar.

And when/if they do find one you will be absolutely sure it's a fake. You already know that, don't you?

 

[Wildy]

It is subject to various interpretations because it was a phrase invented by the Allies to describe events that never happened.

As I said before it is subject to interpretation because you want it to be.

It is subject to various interpretations because it is preposterous to begin with. It is a phrase that the Nazis never used.

You sure like repeating yourself.

It is preposterous in context because the alleged director of the extermination was being asked, by his own attorney, if he had ever heard of it. And, he replied he heard of it on allied radio.

And? He also admitted that he was told by Himmler that Auschwitz was an extermination camp.

It is preposterous because K's attorney was leading Kaltenbrunner to claim that he personally ended the persecution of the Jews.

Which could also be a defence tactic. You know, make your client look better before the courts in the hope of getting a lighter sentence.

It is preposterous because the President of the court didn't know what it meant.

I really doubt that. As far as I'm aware the President of the Court was an Englishman, who would know what "concentration camp" meant, considering that it entered the English language in 1901.

 

[Meadmaker]

Tons of photographs, a two mile high stack of captured German documents, confessions by perpetrators and victims, shall I go on?

But Kaltenbrunner was (allegedly) hanged for his part in the deliberate extermination of the Jews, but there was no deliberate extermination of the Jews. Surely if a million executions can be faked, a million and one executions can be faked.

If you want to pull off this sort of deception, claiming that millions were killed, an important part is to follow up on the claims and pretend to bring people to justice. It's an important part of the script. So, why not invent the villains and pretend to punish them?

However, I, personally, believe that he was, in fact, hanged. Even if his hanging has never been proved, I've seen enough to make me think it was real.

However, that leads to a whole lot of questions, and in those questions are the downfall of this conspiracy theory, as similar questions lead to the downfall of all the other wacko conspiracy theories.

Why kill Kaltenbrunner? If, indeed, there was never a plan to exterminate the Jews, then Kaltenbrunner was murdered. The evidence against him was manufactured, and the people who passed sentence of death on him had to have been in on the plot. Why would they want to do that? Likewise, there were dozens, maybe hundreds, of post-war hangings, all based on this manufactured evidence.

And of course, these people included the US Chief Justice. He's a murderer?

If you follow the lead of most conspiracy theorists, you won't accept that conclusion. Conspiracy theorists never directly accuse people that can be named. They always accuse unnamed, shadowy, figures outside of camera range and undocumented. The problem is that the theory doesn't work. Evidence of gas chambers and their employment was presented at trials. If those gas chambers weren't real, then the evidence had to be manufactured. That evidence has a chain of custody, sometimes very short, as in the case of witness statements. Somewhere along the line, we can find the people who have to be lying, and the people who have to be forging evidence, and the people who have to be torturing people to obtain false confessions, and they had to have known that people would hang based on that false evidence, and so we have to say that those people are guilty of murder.

However, no one ever seems to want to draw that rather obvious conclusion. Instead, there are super secret operatives working just behind the scenes who do all the legwork to accomplish their nefarious aims, and the people we can see are their unwitting pawns.

Or am I wrong? Is there someone you would like to accuse in the case of the conspiracy to murder Ernst Kaltenbrunner?

 

[dafydd]

But Kaltenbrunner was (allegedly) hanged for his part in the deliberate extermination of the Jews, but there was no deliberate extermination of the Jews. Surely if a million executions can be faked, a million and one executions can be faked.

If you want to pull off this sort of deception, claiming that millions were killed, an important part is to follow up on the claims and pretend to bring people to justice. It's an important part of the script. So, why not invent the villains and pretend to punish them?

However, I, personally, believe that he was, in fact, hanged. Even if his hanging has never been proved, I've seen enough to make me think it was real.

However, that leads to a whole lot of questions, and in those questions are the downfall of this conspiracy theory, as similar questions lead to the downfall of all the other wacko conspiracy theories.

Why kill Kaltenbrunner? If, indeed, there was never a plan to exterminate the Jews, then Kaltenbrunner was murdered. The evidence against him was manufactured, and the people who passed sentence of death on him had to have been in on the plot. Why would they want to do that? Likewise, there were dozens, maybe hundreds, of post-war hangings, all based on this manufactured evidence.

And of course, these people included the US Chief Justice. He's a murderer?

If you follow the lead of most conspiracy theorists, you won't accept that conclusion. Conspiracy theorists never directly accuse people that can be named. They always accuse unnamed, shadowy, figures outside of camera range and undocumented. The problem is that the theory doesn't work. Evidence of gas chambers and their employment was presented at trials. If those gas chambers weren't real, then the evidence had to be manufactured. That evidence has a chain of custody, sometimes very short, as in the case of witness statements. Somewhere along the line, we can find the people who have to be lying, and the people who have to be forging evidence, and the people who have to be torturing people to obtain false confessions, and they had to have known that people would hang based on that false evidence, and so we have to say that those people are guilty of murder.

However, no one ever seems to want to draw that rather obvious conclusion. Instead, there are super secret operatives working just behind the scenes who do all the legwork to accomplish their nefarious aims, and the people we can see are their unwitting pawns.

Or am I wrong? Is there someone you would like to accuse in the case of the conspiracy to murder Ernst Kaltenbrunner?

Very well put.I predict that no names will be forthcoming from our Hitler fans.

 

[BaaBaa]

Saggy, do you think it a good or bad thing that the holocaust never happened?

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Saggy, do you think it a good or bad thing that the holocaust never happened?

^^^^This.

 

[dafydd]

Saggy, do you think it a good or bad thing that the holocaust never happened?

 

[tsig]

Saggy, do you think it a good or bad thing that the holocaust never happened?

Crickets chirping. Saggy? Saggy?

I'd hate to think that Saggy has emulated his heroes and crumpled under pressure.

 

[Resume]

Saggy, do you think it a good or bad thing that the holocaust never happened?

Ditto.

Dogpile on Saggy.

 

[Saggy]

And? He also admitted that he was told by Himmler that Auschwitz was an extermination camp.

.

No, 'extermination' is one of several translations, 'destruction' is another, 'damnation' another, etc. The point is that it was a phase the Nazis never used, the allies made up after the war, and no one specifically stated in court what in hell it meant, no doubt purposefully. Even the court President did not know what it meant and interpreted it, in his reference to the question, as a 'concentration' camp.

This one word 'admission' is meaningless. And in context of Kaltenbrunner's smashing of the preposterous case against him, it signifies absolutely nothing.

That's the reality, despite the Zionist's endless spinning of one word. The whole case in one word, in one sentence, when the 2nd in command of the SS is on the stand. Absolutely beyond rational belief. Preposterous. Laughable. The holohoax is dirt poor, a miserable beggar, paper thin and completely transparent, with not a shred of hope of disguising its degenerate base.

 

[Dogzilla]

WWII mass grave found in Slovenia. Gee, I guess there are still some graves to be found, no?

The NKVD killed ALOT of people so, yes, we will be unearthing mass graves for a long time.

I'm surprised this article mentions that "Thousands of Nazi collaborators were executed by communist-backed antifascists after the war; in many cases, victims also included innocent civilians."

Of course, this article would be better support for your Nazis are Nasties holocaust viewpoint if it didn't contain the bodies of Nazi collaborators and innocent civilians who were shot by antifascist communists.

 

[carlitos]

?

Saggy, do you think it a good or bad thing that the holocaust never happened?

???