There is not a single mass grave of holohoax victims.

[MIKILLINI]

When I posted the OP I thought I'd have to do a little research to back up the claim. But, given the idiotic responses, none has been required thus far.

I suppose the name Reinhard Heydrich doesn't ring a bell with you?

How about the Wannsee Villa?

What about Operation Heydrich?

Heinrich Himmler's speech at the Posen conference on 10/6/1943?

Are you familiar with any of this?

 

[Dogzilla]

How do you know that? How do you know I am not Irish? Irish people don't talk like me? You may not believe it, but it's true. Ta me Eirannach.

I have no intention of providing proof, but I will provide some more information. My mother was born in Ireland. I was born in the United States, and have lived my life here. Under Irish law, that makes me a citizen of Ireland, automatically. Under US law, the US will recognize dual citizenship if a person, like me, is born with it.

I have an Irish passport, and a US passport. Both are perfectly valid.

Ever tried showing both when you come into the United States? It seems like that would be a good way to get some extra scrutiny.

As for being Jewish, that's a lot closer to a lie. Neither my mother nor father was Jewish, and I have never converted. However, I am a member of a synagogue, and I might convert someday, if a Reform rabbi will convert an atheist. I think some would. At any rate, tomorrow night I will be in the temple and will wish you all, even you, Saggy, L'shana tovah.

I would be very surprised if any rabbi would accept a convert who didn't believe in God. I thought about doing a formal conversion at one time so I wouldn't be Jewish merely because Mom is. But didn't think they would take atheists. Now my views on the holocaust would probably present a bigger barrier.

The error of your ways is in somehow assuming that people act a certain way if they are of a certain race. It's stupid, but a lot of people believe it.

That's true. A**holes come in every color.

You have a happy New Year yourself.

 

[Dogzilla]

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

Saggy is probably avoiding this question because it's kind of a lame one. My answer is that it would be a good thing if what everybody thought had happened and what had actually happened were the same. I think it's a bad thing when perception and reality don't match.

Answer me this: If you discovered shocking proof that the holocaust did not happen, would you want the world to know?

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

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.

Deliberately silly again, I see. The last paragraph qualifies you for a Stundie nomination.

 

[MIKILLINI]

There are no holohoax graves.

This is true. However, There are holocaust graves; this is also true.

I did not expect an answer.

You've got plenty of answers, but failing to acknowledge them is your problem.

I expected idiocy

You have proven yourself capable of this standard.

and I got it.

Absolutely!

 

[Dogzilla]

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

With the definition of conspiracy being what it is around here then it is clear there was a conspiracy. The same conspiracy of Brits, Americans, French, and Soviets who conspired to defeat Nazi Germany obviously are responsible for Kaltenbrunners death as well.

 

[eerok]

Answer me this: If you discovered shocking proof that the holocaust did not happen, would you want the world to know?

I'd want to vet this proof. I'd consider it very worrying if serious scholars and historiographers lent no credence to the sources, or considered the conclusions unsupportable. Most likely this would sway me to doubt the credibility of the sources as well. But since I don't find conspiracy theories very compelling, I find it easy to defer judgment on this kind of thing.

The main thing is that I don't generally feel qualified to contradict the consensus of experts in matters of fact that have been vetted through strict methodologies that include peer review, because there's simply no way I could match that rigor even if I was working with the same information.

 

[Wildy]

No, 'extermination' is one of several translations, 'destruction' is another, 'damnation' another, etc.

Under your logic then you cannot translate "destruction" into German. Simply because it could be "Vernichtung" or "Zerstörung" or "Niederreißen". I have no idea where you got "damnation" as a possible translation for "Vernichtung" though.

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.

Then what word should they have been using?

 

[Meadmaker]

With the definition of conspiracy being what it is around here then it is clear there was a conspiracy. The same conspiracy of Brits, Americans, French, and Soviets who conspired to defeat Nazi Germany obviously are responsible for Kaltenbrunners death as well.

The definition of conspiracy being thrown around here is the very specific legal term. When two or more people collaborate on a criminal enterprise, there is a conspiracy.

Collaborating to defeat Nazi Germany is not a conspiracy. Collaborating to produce false evidence in a trial is a conspiracy. If that false evidence leads to the execution of a defendant, those producing the false evidence can be tried for conspiracy to commit murder.

This isn't hard, and it isn't a trick question.

You have accused people of forging evidence that resulted in a lot of people being hanged. Kaltenbrunner probably isn't the best example, because he was charged and found guilty of several counts, not all of which were directly related to the extermination of the Jews or Roma. However, there were several people who were hanged whose only capital offense involved putting people into gas chambers. (I'll put forward the name of Irma Grese as an example, but there are lots of others.) If there were no gas chambers, these people were wrongfully convicted and wrongfully executed. Furthermore, the nature of the evidence used in their conviction was such that it had to be true, or had to be forged. Since you don't believe that the evidence is true, you must believe that it was forged. The people who did so are, therefore, guilty of conspiracy to commit murder.

Care to name any names?

 

[Meadmaker]

Ever tried showing both when you come into the United States? It seems like that would be a good way to get some extra scrutiny.

Extra scrutiny, probably, but it's perfectly legal. No, I've never shown my Irish passport to any border guard, not even one in Ireland. No need to create trouble. I actually got the Irish passport when I was attempting to get a spot on an Irish Olympic team. Had absolutely zero chance of getting on the US team, but at the time, I had an outside shot at making it on an Irish team. A combination of injury and family obligation put an end to that idea, though.

 

[kerikiwi]

Saggy is probably avoiding this question because it's kind of a lame one. My answer is that it would be a good thing if what everybody thought had happened and what had actually happened were the same. I think it's a bad thing when perception and reality don't match.

Answer me this: If you discovered shocking proof that the holocaust did not happen, would you want the world to know?

Not a lame question at all, but apparently one you can't understand.
What everyone other than the likes of Saggy thinks happened and what happened ARE the same: the holocaust happened.
You think that is a good thing? Seriously?
The question is whether Saggy thinks it is a good thing or a bad thing that the holocaust didn't happen.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Saggy is probably avoiding this question because it's kind of a lame one. My answer is that it would be a good thing if what everybody thought had happened and what had actually happened were the same. I think it's a bad thing when perception and reality don't match.

Answer me this: If you discovered shocking proof that the holocaust did not happen, would you want the world to know?

Dogzilla admitting that there's no proof the Holocaust did not happen noted and quoted.

 

[Nick Terry]

Answer me this: If you discovered shocking proof that the holocaust did not happen, would you want the world to know?

That begs the question of what would constitute proof that the Holocaust did not happen, i.e. what would falsify the accepted account.

The answer is pretty clear:
(1) actual hard evidence of 'hoaxing',
(2) proof of survival past the death camps of a very significant percentage of the victims

No such evidence has been provided, but this would not stop such evidence being uncovered in the future, at which point the dynamics of the discussion would change utterly. If new evidence came to light showing that actually the Allies really did hoax the evidence for mass murder or that actually, the Jews were transited on somewhere else and then killed by the Soviets who covered up their own misdeeds by blaming it on the Nazis, then any reasonable person would follow the evidence, irrespective of the shocks to their previous views and the upset it might cause.

Until then, however, any reasonable person can dismiss speculations as just that, speculations.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Well, that's the good news, then. Saggy and Dogzilla are the best the deniers have.

 

[Nick Terry]

Well, that's the good news, then. Saggy and Dogzilla are the best the deniers have.

For the next couple of days, Dogzilla would be the only one deniers have, since Saggy has been suspended for 3 days for attacking the arguer not the argument.

 

[ElMondoHummus]

Well, it's not like Saggy was any good at attacking the argument.

Just sayin'.

 

[dafydd]

Well, that's the good news, then. Saggy and Dogzilla are the best the deniers have.

That does not say much for the rest of the deniers.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

That does not say much for the rest of the deniers.

Ed Zachery! I make a point of noting that the Japanese and Germans were not portrayed as monkeys and drooling idiots to the troops that had to fight them. If you're enemy is worthy of respect it should be given. Otherwise you get all dead, permanently.

On the other hand, if the enemy is a total joke and really is a drooling idiot, then respect isn't warranted.

 

[Dogzilla]

I'd want to vet this proof. I'd consider it very worrying if serious scholars and historiographers lent no credence to the sources, or considered the conclusions unsupportable. Most likely this would sway me to doubt the credibility of the sources as well. But since I don't find conspiracy theories very compelling, I find it easy to defer judgment on this kind of thing.

The main thing is that I don't generally feel qualified to contradict the consensus of experts in matters of fact that have been vetted through strict methodologies that include peer review, because there's simply no way I could match that rigor even if I was working with the same information.

So you won't answer the question?

 

[Dogzilla]

The definition of conspiracy being thrown around here is the very specific legal term. When two or more people collaborate on a criminal enterprise, there is a conspiracy.

Collaborating to defeat Nazi Germany is not a conspiracy. Collaborating to produce false evidence in a trial is a conspiracy. If that false evidence leads to the execution of a defendant, those producing the false evidence can be tried for conspiracy to commit murder.

This isn't hard, and it isn't a trick question.

You have accused people of forging evidence that resulted in a lot of people being hanged. Kaltenbrunner probably isn't the best example, because he was charged and found guilty of several counts, not all of which were directly related to the extermination of the Jews or Roma. However, there were several people who were hanged whose only capital offense involved putting people into gas chambers. (I'll put forward the name of Irma Grese as an example, but there are lots of others.) If there were no gas chambers, these people were wrongfully convicted and wrongfully executed. Furthermore, the nature of the evidence used in their conviction was such that it had to be true, or had to be forged. Since you don't believe that the evidence is true, you must believe that it was forged. The people who did so are, therefore, guilty of conspiracy to commit murder.

Care to name any names?

By your logic, you would have access to the names of people involved in the conspiracy as much as I would. Everybody involved in the prosecution of anybody convicted and executed for operating gas chambers would be involved in your conspiracy. There would be thousands who could be held responsible.