There is not a single mass grave of holohoax victims.

[Dogzilla]

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

Answer the question. Would it be good for the world to know the holocaust didn't happen if it didn't happen?

 

[uke2se]

Answer the question. Would it be good for the world to know the holocaust didn't happen if it didn't happen?

Yes.

Speaking of hypotheticals, would it be good for the world to know that the sun revolves around the earth if it did revolve around the earth?

 

[twinstead]

Just as bad for the world to be told it didn't happen when it really did.

 

[MG1962]

Answer the question. Would it be good for the world to know the holocaust didn't happen if it didn't happen?

The world needs to know the truth no matter the event being discussed. In the case of the holocaust it would create a fascinating line of research for historians, where are the missing 10 - 12 million people, what became of them

 

[Dogzilla]

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.

Findings are the conclusions reached after a judicial inquiry. Close enough to verdict for government work. If the verdicts of Allied War Crimes trials were binding on the German courts, there wouldn't be any point in revisiting the findings making them de facto binding. You say the sentences could not be overturned but didn't many a war criminal get early release from their sentences? In which case what does it really mean that their sentences couldn't be overturned. In any case, the role of precedent makes it very difficult to deviate from a previous court's ruling. That's why lawyers and judges make terrible historians.

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.

How many SS men who were not in court, had not been in court, had not been arrested, not been charged, who were not giving state's evidence, had not already given state's evidence, or were not subpoenaed to give state's evidence or not on trial themselves--in short, who were living below the radar--ever go public with the extermination of the Jews in gas chambers story?

Any convict can be tried again if he commits another crime.

Allied censorship was withdrawn in 1949 when the Federal Republic was established.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.

Let me ask you this: Are you one of those people who says that holocaust denial isn't illegal anywhere in the world? It never has been and it never will be? Because I know people who actually say that with a straight face.

When people like Ernst Zundel are being tried in Canada for publishing revisionist material in the mid-1980s, despite no holocaust denial law specifically on the books in Canada, or where Frederick Toben is detained in England (which has no anti-holocaust denial laws) while flying from Australia to Dubai because Germany has requested his extradition, where David Irving is arrested in Austria in 2005 because something he said in 1988 (which was true, btw) was made illegal there in 1994 and where Sheppard and Whittle (British citizens of a country with no anti-holocaust denial laws) sat in jail for two years in the United States (which has the goddamn First Amendment) before they were sent back to England to serve their sentences for hurting the Jews feelings, what do you mean by it's "perfectly possible" for former SS men to deny the holocaust without fear of legal ramifications?

Holy chronological gibberish, Batman!

I know, it's crazy! But if fear of prosecution was dead, buried, dug up, and already gone through the chimney by 1955, the 1960s and 1970s had to have occurred before then.

Or you assertion that SS men had nothing to fear from coming out of the closet after 1955 is mindless drivel.

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.

This would possibly be valid only if there were Germans in the territory where the Jews were sent and that they would have necessarily seen and recognized the Jews sent there. How many of these Germans were in the east and how many of them would have been in a position to know the fate of the Jews sent there? Where were these Germans after the war and who sought out their testimony?

We don't have Germans stepping forward to claim responsibility for resettling the Jews in the East. But we do have the reports of Americans who witnessed the flood of Jews from the East arriving in the DP camps after the war. During the war we know Jews were deported to the east. After the war, we know Jews traveling from the east arrived in DP camps in the west. So what if we don't know what happened in the interim? If they were alive in 1945/6/7, they weren't dead.

Your argument is weak but what blows it out of the water is the fact that if millions of Jews were murdered in four or five tiny specks on the map, there would be evidence of that at those places.

And there isn't.

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.

And you've read the transcript of the Eichmann interview? Then you know he confirmed nothing of an extermination policy. And you know the difference between a policy of ethnic cleansing and a policy of extermination? And you know that you can shoot people who are Jewish without pushing them into gas chambers? Just checking, I want to be sure we have the same idea of what an "extermination" is.

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.

Actually, there were a flood of denials...at first. When Kramer was arrested and interrogated he denied the gas chambers. After spending some time on holiday with the British did he "remember" that there were gas chambers after all. [Cue Believer drivel about Hitler oath...and....action!]. Then there's Kremer who kept a detailed diary which included his time at Auschwitz. Oddly he didn't say anything about gas chambers at all in that diary. Only after he too had spent some time on holiday did he "remember" the gas chambers.

It wasn't very long after the surrender that the Germans realized that the Allies actually believed in the gas chambers despite absolutely no evidence. Knowing that it is impossible to prove a negative, trying to convince the court there were no gas chambers would only result in angering the court. Their only recourse was to disavow any involvement with the gas chambers...which most did.

This, incidentally, is the same way witchcraft has been proven to be true as well.

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.

This would be a valid argument if there was any evidence that any Nazis had actually escaped Europe and rebuilt their lives by hiding in Latin America. For a while, Bormann was spotted every once in a while in South America but we now know that wasn't him. There's Mengele but he drowned before he could recant.

But Mengele is the only one who we know was able to escape to South America and go into hiding.

I'll acknowledge that any Nazis who successfully went underground and lived the rest of their lives undetected wouldn't be known to us. So it could've happened.

If there were any Nazis who escaped to South America but were discovered and brought to trial, it would confirm your Nazi war criminals escaping to South America theory but it would destroy your argument that South America provided safety for them.

But I don't know about any of those, do you?

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.

It's really quite simple to explain why SS men testified to extermination in substantial numbers. They didn't. You haven't cited a single SS man or woman who has publicly admitted to a Nazi extermination program for the Jews or the gas chambers outside of the courtroom.

When exactly did these SS men start telling interrogators in "substantial" numbers about the plan to physically exterminate the Jews and/or the gas chambers? Who were the Germans who spilled the beans, who did they tell this information to, and what was the circumstance of their interrogations?

Remember the time line here. Around 1943, Allies began receiving reports of mass extermination in gas chambers. But the Allies thought these reports were false. In 1945, when large numbers of Germans began to fall into the hand of the Allies, the Allied interrogators would have no reason to believe the rumors about gas chambers. They might not even know about these rumours.

It is in this milieu in which, according to you, substantial numbers of Germans began opening up to their interrogators about the gas chambers. So what was the reaction to the initial disclosure by the Germans? How did it happen? Did different interrogation teams from all over Europe begin receiving reports of gas chambers all at once?

What did the Allies do to try to confirm these gas chambers? There had to have been some resistance to the idea at first because believing the gas chambers were real required accepting the fact that there had been an intelligence failure of monumental proportions.

What proof did the Germans offer of these fantastical gas chambers?

No, your fantasy of Germans en mass telling their disbelieving captors about the "gas chambers" is simply a convoluted fantasy. The only way the Allies would believe in the magic gas chambers is if they had a preconceived notion that there were gas chambers. The record shows that Germans did deny the gas chambers initially. Germans continued to deny any knowledge of the gas chambers from Nuremberg to Frankfurt and beyond.

You wonder how the Germans knew what to say to Allies about the gas chambers? They didn't. They gave descriptions of fantastical WMDs that were all over the board. The Allies picked pieces of testimony that vaguely fit the narrative they wanted to develop. Your side has defended this practice vis-a-vis the Gerstein statement. You've done this with the Hoess statements as well. Use what you like and ignore all the other crazy stuff. This practice is why you had patently false garbage about steam chambers, electric floors, and the Belsen gas chamber ending up in the record.

You don't need a conspiracy to explain what happened but if you want to call it a conspiracy, then there's a conspiracy. There's no need to explain how it is possible that a conspiracy of this magnitude developed. We know it is possible because it happened.

 

[uke2se]

It's really quite simple to explain why SS men testified to extermination in substantial numbers. They didn't. You haven't cited a single SS man or woman who has publicly admitted to a Nazi extermination program for the Jews or the gas chambers outside of the courtroom.

I'm not even going to bother with the rest of your tripe, Nazi, but this is an outright lie. If I had bothered to read the rest of your post, I'm sure I would have found more. We have cited Höss, an SS man. He publicly admitted to a Nazi extermination program for the Jews and the gas chambers, and he did so outside of the courtroom.

 

[Meadmaker]

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.

Thought so.

You are correct, or at least almost correct. A prosecutor might be misled by lying eyewitnesses or by lying investigators who forged evidence, so it is conceivable that a prosecutor might unwittingly, but in good faith, send the wrong person to the gallows. However, those investigators who presented falsified evidence, and those eyewitnesses who made statements that could not possibly be true if there were no gas chambers would have to be guilty of deliberately sending innocent people to their deaths.

Even the prosecutors and judges would be highly suspect. In the course of building a case, if the evidence was so incredibly weak as you claim, they would have to discard all professional integrity in order to present such flawed evidence, or to accept it when it was put forward. They would either have to be grossly incompetent, or perfectly happy to obtain wrongful convictions. Given their credentials, incompetence seems out of the question. The only option left is that they were simply lying.

You have their names. Why won't you use them?

Whether you care to admit it or not, you are already calling them murderers. I'm just asking you to put a name on those you accuse.

 

[Meadmaker]

This would possibly be valid only if there were Germans in the territory where the Jews were sent and that they would have necessarily seen and recognized the Jews sent there.

Ukranians can't recognize Jews? I would think they could figure that the ones speaking Yiddish and wearing their hats all day long would be pretty easy to spot.

There's Mengele but he drowned before he could recant.

A mere 38 years after the war. I'm sure he was planning to recant on the 40th anniversary.

But Mengele is the only one who we know was able to escape to South America and go into hiding.

 

[Dogzilla]

Yes.

Speaking of hypotheticals, would it be good for the world to know that the sun revolves around the earth if it did revolve around the earth?

Yes

 

[CptColumbo]

The precedent was set at Nuremberg, where the only man charged with the preposterous crimes of the holohoax, Ernst Kaltenbrunner, told the degenerates on the court to stuff the absurd charges up their *****.

Instead the Zionists trotted out Rudolf Hoess, the 'mastermind' of the hoax, the 'murderer' of two million, or three, Jews, as a DEFENSE witness. Hoess's phantasmagoria, dutifully scripted by the World Jewish Congress, and published in reports of the US government, became judicial fact that could not be challenged in subsequent trials.

Kaltenbrunner was hung. Hoess was not charged with any crime at Nuremberg.

These courts were pure theater of the absurd.

Ernst Kaltenbrunner spent much of his time trying to shift the responsibility.

Hoess (Höß) was put on trial in Poland for murder and sentenced to death. He was hanged on April 16, 1947. So, what did Hoess get out it?

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Ernst Kaltenbrunner spent much of his time trying to shift the responsibility.

Hoess (Höß) was put on trial in Poland for murder and sentenced to death. He was hanged on April 16, 1947. So, what did Hoess get out it?

Taller?

 

[tsig]

Findings are the conclusions reached after a judicial inquiry. Close enough to verdict for government work. If the verdicts of Allied War Crimes trials were binding on the German courts, there wouldn't be any point in revisiting the findings making them de facto binding. You say the sentences could not be overturned but didn't many a war criminal get early release from their sentences? In which case what does it really mean that their sentences couldn't be overturned. In any case, the role of precedent makes it very difficult to deviate from a previous court's ruling. That's why lawyers and judges make terrible historians.



How many SS men who were not in court, had not been in court, had not been arrested, not been charged, who were not giving state's evidence, had not already given state's evidence, or were not subpoenaed to give state's evidence or not on trial themselves--in short, who were living below the radar--ever go public with the extermination of the Jews in gas chambers story?

Any convict can be tried again if he commits another crime.




Let me ask you this: Are you one of those people who says that holocaust denial isn't illegal anywhere in the world? It never has been and it never will be? Because I know people who actually say that with a straight face.

When people like Ernst Zundel are being tried in Canada for publishing revisionist material in the mid-1980s, despite no holocaust denial law specifically on the books in Canada, or where Frederick Toben is detained in England (which has no anti-holocaust denial laws) while flying from Australia to Dubai because Germany has requested his extradition, where David Irving is arrested in Austria in 2005 because something he said in 1988 (which was true, btw) was made illegal there in 1994 and where Sheppard and Whittle (British citizens of a country with no anti-holocaust denial laws) sat in jail for two years in the United States (which has the goddamn First Amendment) before they were sent back to England to serve their sentences for hurting the Jews feelings, what do you mean by it's "perfectly possible" for former SS men to deny the holocaust without fear of legal ramifications?




I know, it's crazy! But if fear of prosecution was dead, buried, dug up, and already gone through the chimney by 1955, the 1960s and 1970s had to have occurred before then.

Or you assertion that SS men had nothing to fear from coming out of the closet after 1955 is mindless drivel.




This would possibly be valid only if there were Germans in the territory where the Jews were sent and that they would have necessarily seen and recognized the Jews sent there. How many of these Germans were in the east and how many of them would have been in a position to know the fate of the Jews sent there? Where were these Germans after the war and who sought out their testimony?

We don't have Germans stepping forward to claim responsibility for resettling the Jews in the East. But we do have the reports of Americans who witnessed the flood of Jews from the East arriving in the DP camps after the war. During the war we know Jews were deported to the east. After the war, we know Jews traveling from the east arrived in DP camps in the west. So what if we don't know what happened in the interim? If they were alive in 1945/6/7, they weren't dead.

Your argument is weak but what blows it out of the water is the fact that if millions of Jews were murdered in four or five tiny specks on the map, there would be evidence of that at those places.

And there isn't.




And you've read the transcript of the Eichmann interview? Then you know he confirmed nothing of an extermination policy. And you know the difference between a policy of ethnic cleansing and a policy of extermination? And you know that you can shoot people who are Jewish without pushing them into gas chambers? Just checking, I want to be sure we have the same idea of what an "extermination" is.




Actually, there were a flood of denials...at first. When Kramer was arrested and interrogated he denied the gas chambers. After spending some time on holiday with the British did he "remember" that there were gas chambers after all. [Cue Believer drivel about Hitler oath...and....action!]. Then there's Kremer who kept a detailed diary which included his time at Auschwitz. Oddly he didn't say anything about gas chambers at all in that diary. Only after he too had spent some time on holiday did he "remember" the gas chambers.

It wasn't very long after the surrender that the Germans realized that the Allies actually believed in the gas chambers despite absolutely no evidence. Knowing that it is impossible to prove a negative, trying to convince the court there were no gas chambers would only result in angering the court. Their only recourse was to disavow any involvement with the gas chambers...which most did.

This, incidentally, is the same way witchcraft has been proven to be true as well.




This would be a valid argument if there was any evidence that any Nazis had actually escaped Europe and rebuilt their lives by hiding in Latin America. For a while, Bormann was spotted every once in a while in South America but we now know that wasn't him. There's Mengele but he drowned before he could recant.

But Mengele is the only one who we know was able to escape to South America and go into hiding.

I'll acknowledge that any Nazis who successfully went underground and lived the rest of their lives undetected wouldn't be known to us. So it could've happened.

If there were any Nazis who escaped to South America but were discovered and brought to trial, it would confirm your Nazi war criminals escaping to South America theory but it would destroy your argument that South America provided safety for them.

But I don't know about any of those, do you?




It's really quite simple to explain why SS men testified to extermination in substantial numbers. They didn't. You haven't cited a single SS man or woman who has publicly admitted to a Nazi extermination program for the Jews or the gas chambers outside of the courtroom.

When exactly did these SS men start telling interrogators in "substantial" numbers about the plan to physically exterminate the Jews and/or the gas chambers? Who were the Germans who spilled the beans, who did they tell this information to, and what was the circumstance of their interrogations?

Remember the time line here. Around 1943, Allies began receiving reports of mass extermination in gas chambers. But the Allies thought these reports were false. In 1945, when large numbers of Germans began to fall into the hand of the Allies, the Allied interrogators would have no reason to believe the rumors about gas chambers. They might not even know about these rumours.

It is in this milieu in which, according to you, substantial numbers of Germans began opening up to their interrogators about the gas chambers. So what was the reaction to the initial disclosure by the Germans? How did it happen? Did different interrogation teams from all over Europe begin receiving reports of gas chambers all at once?

What did the Allies do to try to confirm these gas chambers? There had to have been some resistance to the idea at first because believing the gas chambers were real required accepting the fact that there had been an intelligence failure of monumental proportions.

What proof did the Germans offer of these fantastical gas chambers?

No, your fantasy of Germans en mass telling their disbelieving captors about the "gas chambers" is simply a convoluted fantasy. The only way the Allies would believe in the magic gas chambers is if they had a preconceived notion that there were gas chambers. The record shows that Germans did deny the gas chambers initially. Germans continued to deny any knowledge of the gas chambers from Nuremberg to Frankfurt and beyond.

You wonder how the Germans knew what to say to Allies about the gas chambers? They didn't. They gave descriptions of fantastical WMDs that were all over the board. The Allies picked pieces of testimony that vaguely fit the narrative they wanted to develop. Your side has defended this practice vis-a-vis the Gerstein statement. You've done this with the Hoess statements as well. Use what you like and ignore all the other crazy stuff. This practice is why you had patently false garbage about steam chambers, electric floors, and the Belsen gas chamber ending up in the record.

You don't need a conspiracy to explain what happened but if you want to call it a conspiracy, then there's a conspiracy. There's no need to explain how it is possible that a conspiracy of this magnitude developed. We know it is possible because it happened.

So your black wearing goose stompers were scared.

 

[bruto]

So you won't answer the question?

I'll answer the question. If I had proof (and not just a strong belief) of something shocking and unexpected, I would indeed try my best to propagate that knowledge, but the first thing I'd do in that attempt would be to make sure the proof is real, that it is indeed proof of what I think, and not an error on my part, and that I am capable both of understanding and explaining it. So far Saggy has not been at all successful in providing the proof of what he believes, and has instead provided us with abundant evidence that his beliefs are based on an implacable hatred of Jews that makes him unable or unwilling to evaluate evidence objectively.

But the short answer is, yes, if I had proof of something shocking, I'd be trying my hardest to convince others of it.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

But the short answer is, yes, if I had proof of something shocking, I'd be trying my hardest to convince others of it.

The difference being you'd use facts, and not fabrications.

 

[Dogzilla]

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.

The vast numbers of Jews arriving in the DP camps in the American zone created a minor crisis in 1946. These were mostly Polish Jews who traveled to Germany from eastern Europe. Eastern Europe is where Nazi Germany deported lots of Jews during the war. If all the Jews that Nazi Germany deported to the east during the war were killed, where did all the Jews flooding into Germany from east after the war come from?

If you want people to believe that all the people who were sent to the AR camps were murdered there, you need to show us mass graves that could hold all the bodies. Telling us wild stories about the number of people murdered and buried in impossibly small places, providing evidence that a few bodies were buried at one camp and then paving the whole thing over to prevent any forensic investigation just isn't enough.

 

[Dogzilla]

So your black wearing goose stompers were scared.

Terrified! What do you expect from a bunch of weenies? What are you talking about?

 

[Meadmaker]

If you want people to believe that all the people who were sent to the AR camps were murdered there,

No one claims that all of them were murdered there. So many Jews, so little time....

 

[Dogzilla]

It's easy to be confused when chatting with Nick Terry. He claimed that Nazi war criminals who fled to South America were not in any danger of being prosecuted if they had gone public with a tell all memoir refuting the holocaust. I was hoping he could provide me with some names of some Nazi war criminals who had fled to South America and were living completely out in the open and had never been bothered by Nazi hunters anywhere. If such a person existed, then maybe he is right.

He might be able to name some Nazis who fled to South America after the war but if he names any of the names that you and I might think of, he shoots himself in the foot.

 

[Dogzilla]

Just as bad for the world to be told it didn't happen when it really did.

That's true.

 

[carlitos]

Dogzilla, I know that you are busy imparting your knowledge on multiple sites, but there are a couple of posts for you to address on the other thread.